The Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a suit filed by the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) seeking to invalidate Sections 138 and 77(5) of the Electoral Act, 2026, ruling that the challenged provisions are constitutional and complement the 1999 Constitution.

Delivering judgment on Tuesday, Justice Mohammed Umar held that the suit lacked merit and upheld preliminary objections challenging its competence.

The NDC, which was registered by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) on February 5, had approached the court in suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/635/2026, arguing that the disputed sections of the Electoral Act conflict with constitutional provisions governing qualification for elective offices and freedom of association.

The party sued the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), the Clerk of the National Assembly, Senate President Godswill Akpabio and INEC, seeking orders nullifying the provisions and directing the National Assembly to amend the law.

Justice Umar, however, ruled that the Electoral Act provisions reinforce rather than contradict the Constitution.

He held that the plaintiff merely invited the court to interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, adding that attaching INEC’s election timetable to the originating summons did not make the matter a pre-election case.

“The plaintiff is invoking the interpretative jurisdiction of this honourable court in respect of the provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 on the one hand and the 1999 Constitution on the other hand,” the judge said.

He further ruled that the NDC failed to serve the mandatory pre-action notice on the Clerk of the National Assembly before commencing the suit, rendering the action incompetent against the second defendant. The claim against the Clerk was consequently struck out.

On the substantive issues, Justice Umar rejected the NDC’s contention that Section 138 of the Electoral Act unlawfully removed qualification as a ground for challenging the return of elected candidates.

He explained that while the Constitution prescribes qualifications and disqualifications for elective offices, the Electoral Act merely provides the procedure and timelines for resolving disputes arising from party primaries.

“Any aggrieved party who intends to challenge any candidate that emerged at the primary election of a political party on grounds of disqualification must do so at the pre-election level,” he held.

According to the court, Section 138 complements the constitutional provisions and does not conflict with them.

“The contention of the plaintiff that Section 138 is inconsistent with the Constitution is of no merit,” Justice Umar ruled.

The judge also declined to nullify Section 77(5) of the Electoral Act, noting that the Court of Appeal had already settled the issue in an earlier decision, making it binding on lower courts under the doctrine of judicial precedent.

The NDC had argued that Section 77(5), which regulates participation in party primaries, infringes on constitutional rights to freedom of association and political participation.

However, INEC, the AGF, the Clerk of the National Assembly and Senate President Akpabio all opposed the suit, insisting that the Electoral Act was validly enacted in accordance with the Constitution.

INEC maintained that the Act does not restrict the constitutional rights of citizens to form or belong to political parties and that the timetable for party primaries fully complies with the Electoral Act and constitutional requirements.

The AGF also argued that the contested provisions strengthen, rather than diminish, constitutional safeguards governing the electoral process.

With the dismissal of the suit, the Electoral Act, 2026 remains in force in its current form.