THE Senate has passed the 2026 Electoral Act Amendment Bill, with an amendment that provides jurisdiction of the court in handling pre-election matters.
The passage followed the presentation of a report by the Committee on INEC by its Chairman, Simon Lalong (APC-Plateau), at plenary on Thursday, May 7, to to address gaps, timelines and court jurisdiction in the resolution of pre-election disputes.
Lalong had led debate on the Bill by explaining that it sought to address one of the most persistent procedural and constitutional challenges in the country’s electoral jurisprudence, such uncertainty, multiplicity and inconsistency associated with the jurisdiction for the determination of pre-election matters.
Noting that democracy thrives not merely on the conduct of elections, but also on the credibility, certainty and predictability of the legal processes that precede the elections, Lalong added: “The legitimacy of candidates and integrity of party primaries are foundational pillars of representative democracy.
“Where the legal framework regulating pre-election disputes is uncertain or conflicting, the entire electoral architecture becomes vulnerable to confusion, forum shopping, contradictory judgments and unnecessary delays.”
He stated that the Bill was to amend Section 29 of the Electoral Act and introduce a new Section 29A to clearly delineate jurisdictional competence in pre-election matters.
Lalong said despite the provisions of Section 285(14) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) on pre- election matters, the legal system continued to witness conflicting interpretations regarding appropriate courts with jurisdiction to entertain disputes.
This, he noted, results in conflicting decisions from courts of coordinate jurisdiction and abuse of judicial process, as well as undue delay in the resolution of electoral disputes and avoidable constitutional tension between courts.
He further explained that the amendment was to bring clarity, order and constitutional harmony to the adjudication of pre-election matters, especially regarding Clause Two of the Bill, which amends Section 29 (5) of the principal act, by providing that an aspirant may institute an action either in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) or in the jurisdiction where the cause of action arose.
According to him: “This amendment is both practical and equitable, it reduces hardship on litigants, improves access to justice and aligns electoral adjudication with territorial realities surrounding political primaries and nomination processes.
“More fundamentally, Clause Three introduces a new section 29A, which is the substantive innovation of this Bill, and establishes a clear jurisdictional framework on pre-election matters relating to elections into the National Assembly, Governorship and State Houses of Assembly.”
He said pre-election matters relating to Governorship and State Houses of Assembly shall originate at the Federal High Court, with appeals lying to the Court of Appeal, while that of President and Vice President shall originate at the Court of Appeal exercising original jurisdiction, with appeals lying to the Supreme Court.
Lalong said the proposal was not arbitrary, but rooted firmly in constitutional logic, judicial efficiency and the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, adding: “Presidential elections are national in character and constitutional significance.
“Given the sensitivity and urgency associated with such offices, vesting original jurisdiction in the Court of Appeal ensures expeditious determination by a superior court of record with nationwide competence and institutional capacity.
“Similarly, assigning jurisdiction over other pre-election matters to the Federal High Court promotes specialisation and consistency, especially given the federal nature of electoral administration through the INEC.”
He explained further that the Bill also sought to eliminate the dangerous practice where litigants deliberately institute multiple suits in different judicial divisions in search of favourable orders, a development that erodes public confidence in the judiciary and undermine electoral stability.
“By expressly providing that no court shall entertain pre-election matters except in accordance with the proposed Section 29A, this amendment introduces certainty and procedural discipline into electoral adjudication.
“The amendment before us is not merely procedural, it is institutional and strengthens electoral justice, deepens democratic accountability and reinforces public confidence in our electoral process.”
Lalong said the Bill was timely, necessary and in the national interest, urging his colleagues to support its passage.
In his contributing, Mohammed Monguno (APC-Borno), after seconding the motion, said the amendment sought was apt and germane, and will lead to an improved experience in the country’s electoral litigation.
He also urged his colleagues to support the passage of the Bill.
President of Senate, Godswill Akpabio, in his remarks after the passage of the Bill, commended Lalong and other members of the committee for their inputs.
He expressed optimism that the Bill would be assented to by President Bola Tinubu, as it will deepen democracy and governance in Nigeria.
Published:
Related articles
Recent articles
