Subscribe: Gist E-Paper
The Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed July 20, 2026, for judgment in a suit filed by the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) seeking to nullify two provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026, which it argues are inconsistent with the Constitution.
Justice Mohammed Umar scheduled the judgment date on Tuesday after lawyers representing the NDC and the defendants adopted their written submissions and presented arguments for and against the suit.
The NDC is challenging Sections 138 and 77(5) of the Electoral Act, 2026, recently enacted by the National Assembly and assented to by President Bola Tinubu. The party contends that the provisions conflict with constitutional requirements governing eligibility for elective offices and political participation.
The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/635/2026, was filed by the NDC following its registration by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) on February 5. The Attorney-General of the Federation, the Clerk of the National Assembly, Senate President Godswill Akpabio, and INEC were joined as defendants.
Counsel to the NDC, Vincent Ottaokpukpu, urged the court to strike down Section 138, arguing that it removes “qualification” as a ground for challenging the election of candidates to offices including President, Governor, Senator and House of Representatives member, contrary to constitutional provisions.
He also asked the court to invalidate Section 77(5), which restricts participation in party primaries to members whose names appear in a party’s digital register submitted to INEC at least 21 days before the exercise. According to him, the Constitution does not prescribe any minimum duration of party membership before a citizen can seek elective office.
In an affidavit supporting the suit, the NDC maintained that the provision could unfairly affect politicians who defect to other parties after disputes arising from party primaries and wish to contest elections under new platforms.
However, INEC opposed the suit, insisting that the Electoral Act was validly enacted and does not violate constitutional rights. The commission argued that Section 77(5) neither limits freedom of association nor prevents citizens from joining political parties of their choice.
INEC further contended that the case constitutes a pre-election matter and was filed outside the statutory period allowed by law. Its counsel, Chief Alex Izinyon (SAN), urged the court to dismiss the suit for being statute-barred.
Responding, Ottaokpukpu maintained that the matter concerns constitutional interpretation rather than a pre-election dispute. He argued that the challenged provisions are fundamentally inconsistent with the Constitution and urged the court to reject INEC’s preliminary objection.
The Attorney-General of the Federation also defended the law, arguing that the Electoral Act complements constitutional provisions on candidate qualification and does not remove any constitutional safeguards against unqualified candidates contesting elections.
Similarly, the Clerk of the National Assembly and Senate President Akpabio asked the court to dismiss the suit, insisting that the Electoral Act, 2026, was lawfully passed and does not infringe on citizens’ constitutional rights.
After hearing all submissions, Justice Umar reserved judgment until July 20, when the court is expected to determine the legality of the disputed provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026.
