Backlash Trails Electoral Act 2026 Over Limits On Election Petitions
By FIDELUS ZWANSON
Controversy Greets New Electoral Law
A growing debate has erupted over Nigeria’s newly enacted Electoral Act 2026, with legal scholars, civil society groups and political stakeholders warning that a controversial provision could trigger a constitutional confrontation between the National Assembly and the judiciary.
At the centre of the dispute is Section 138 of the Act, which critics say significantly narrows the grounds upon which election results may be challenged. Observers argue that the provision could restrict attempts to question the eligibility of candidates who contest elections.
The controversy has raised fundamental questions about Nigeria’s democratic system — particularly who determines whether a candidate is qualified to hold public office.
Restricting Grounds for Petitions
Under Section 138(1) of the new law, an election can only be challenged on two grounds: that the poll was invalid due to corrupt practices or non-compliance with the Act, or that the declared winner was not duly elected by a majority of lawful votes cast.
Subsection (3) of the same provision also prescribes financial penalties of at least ₦5 million for lawyers and ₦10 million for petitioners who file cases outside the listed grounds.
Legal observers say the provision departs from previous electoral laws, which expressly allowed election petitions based on qualification issues such as age falsification, perjury or certificate forgery.
The omission of qualification as a ground for challenging election results has therefore sparked widespread concern among analysts and civil society advocates.
Constitutional Questions
Critics argue that the new provision appears to conflict with several sections of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which clearly define conditions under which candidates may be disqualified from contesting elections.
For example, Sections 137(1)(j) and 182(1)(j) of the Constitution bar individuals from contesting for the offices of president or governor if they present forged certificates to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
Similarly, Sections 66(1)(i) and 107(1)(i) disqualify candidates for the National Assembly and state Houses of Assembly who submit forged academic credentials.
Former Minority Leader of the Senate, Olorunnimbe Mamora, said any law that attempts to limit the enforcement of constitutional requirements could face legal challenges.
“The Constitution is supreme. Any provision of an Act that seeks to limit constitutional qualification criteria may be struck down for inconsistency,” Mamora said.
He urged Nigerians to challenge the contentious section in court, warning that failing to address the issue could undermine democratic accountability and the credibility of Nigeria’s academic system.
Legal Implications
Legal analysts warn that if interpreted strictly, the new law could force litigants alleging certificate forgery or other qualification issues to pursue separate civil or criminal proceedings outside the election tribunal framework.
Such a shift, they argue, could delay the resolution of disputes over candidates’ eligibility and allow elected officials to remain in office while litigation continues in other courts.
Critics also say the financial penalties attached to filing petitions outside the specified grounds may discourage lawyers and petitioners from testing constitutional questions within election tribunals.
In a political environment where post-election litigation has become common, the potential “chilling effect” of such penalties could be significant.
Calls for Legislative Review
Some experts, however, believe the judiciary will ultimately resolve the apparent conflict by interpreting the provision in line with the Constitution or striking down the controversial sections.
Professor Ayo Olukoju of the University of Lagos urged lawmakers to revisit the provision to ensure full alignment with constitutional principles.
According to him, failing to address the issue could damage Nigeria’s reputation, particularly if allegations of certificate forgery appear shielded from effective legal scrutiny.
“If this stands, it sends a troubling signal about our standards,” he said.
Civil Society Raises Alarm
Several civic groups and public commentators have also criticised the provision.
Lawyer and member of Ohanaeze Ndigbo, Goddy Uwazurike, described the law as “an Electoral Act of confusion,” arguing that existing criminal laws already cover offences such as certificate forgery.
Similarly, founding member of the Middle Belt Forum, Isuwa Dogo, called on professional bodies including the Nigeria Union of Journalists, Nigerian Bar Association and Academic Staff Union of Universities to challenge the law in court.
Meanwhile, Akin Malaolu, president of the Yoruba Ronu Leadership Forum, accused the ruling All Progressives Congress of allowing provisions that could weaken democratic safeguards.
As debate intensifies, analysts say the controversy may ultimately be settled by the courts, which will determine whether the disputed provision can stand alongside the Constitution.
