Court Rejects NDC Suit on Electoral Act Provisions

The NDC had sought to nullify Sections 138 and 77(5) of the Act. Section 77(5) limits participation in party primaries, congresses and conventions to members whose names appear on registers submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) at least 21 days before the exercise.

A Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a suit filed by the National Democratic Congress (NDC) challenging key provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 on candidate qualification and political party membership registers.

Delivering judgment on Tuesday, Justice Muhammed Umar held that Section 138 of the Electoral Act, which excludes candidate qualification as a ground for election petitions after polls, is consistent with the 1999 Constitution.

"The provision of Section 138 of the Electoral Act 2026 complements the provision of the Constitution but is not in conflict with it. The contention of the plaintiff that Section 138 is inconsistent with the Constitution is of no merit," the judge ruled.

The NDC had sought to nullify Sections 138 and 77(5) of the Act. Section 77(5) limits participation in party primaries, congresses and conventions to members whose names appear on registers submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) at least 21 days before the exercise.

Justice Umar held that while the Constitution sets out the qualifications and disqualifications for elective office, the Electoral Act prescribes the procedure and timeline for challenging a candidate's qualification. He noted that aggrieved parties retain the right to challenge a candidate's eligibility during the pre-election stage.

On Section 77(5), the court ruled that the issue had already been determined by the Court of Appeal, whose decision invalidating the provision remains binding.

The court also upheld a preliminary objection by the Clerk of the National Assembly, who argued that the NDC failed to serve the mandatory pre-action notice before instituting the suit. Justice Umar held that the omission rendered the action incompetent and liable to be struck out.

He further clarified that the case was essentially a constitutional interpretation matter rather than a pre-election dispute, adding that merely attaching INEC's election timetable to the originating summons did not bring it within the ambit of Section 285 of the Constitution.

"The fact that the defendant's timetable is attached cannot make the case fall within the contemplation of Section 285," the judge said.

Among its reliefs, the NDC had sought a declaration that questions relating to the qualification of candidates could still be raised after elections.

The Attorney-General of the Federation, the Clerk of the National Assembly, Senate President Godswill Akpabio, the President of the Senate and INEC were listed as defendants.

The challenge to Section 77(5) came weeks after the Court of Appeal, in a judgment delivered on July 16, struck down Sections 77(5), (6) and (7), as well as Section 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026. The appellate court held that the provisions, which regulate party membership registers and candidate nomination procedures, were inconsistent with Sections 221 and 222 of the Constitution, which guarantee political parties the right to determine who they sponsor for elections.

The appellate decision followed an appeal filed by the Zenith Party.