New Electoral Act Amendment Reshapes Pre-Election Litigation
The National Assembly has approved a significant amendment to the Electoral Act, 2026, introducing major changes to the jurisdiction of courts in pre-election matters. The amendment, which has reportedly been transmitted to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu for assent, alters Section 29(5) of the Electoral Act and inserts an entirely new Section 29A to create a new framework for the commencement and determination of pre-election disputes.
While supporters argue that the amendment seeks to eliminate uncertainty and conflicting judicial decisions, its timing has raised important legal and democratic questions, particularly in light of regional commitments that discourage substantial electoral law reforms less than six months before an election.
What the Amendment Does
The amendment makes two principal changes.
First, it revises Section 29(5) of the Electoral Act dealing with challenges to the qualification of candidates. Under the amended provision, an aspirant who participated in a party primary and believes that a candidate submitted false information in support of his or her nomination may institute an action either in a court located within the Federal Capital Territory or in the jurisdiction where the cause of action arose.
The more far-reaching change is the insertion of a new Section 29A, which establishes an exclusive jurisdictional regime for pre-election matters.
Under the new provision:
- Pre-election matters relating to elections into the National Assembly, State Houses of Assembly, Governorship and Deputy Governorship offices shall commence exclusively at the Federal High Court, with appeals lying to the Court of Appeal.
- Pre-election matters relating to Presidential and Vice-Presidential elections shall commence directly at the Court of Appeal, which is granted original jurisdiction over such disputes, while appeals shall lie to the Supreme Court.
- No court may entertain any pre-election matter except in accordance with the new jurisdictional structure.
The amendment therefore removes the existing overlap that has historically allowed litigants to approach different courts in pre-election disputes and attempts to create a more streamlined and predictable judicial process.
Why the National Assembly May Have Introduced the Amendment
The issue of jurisdiction in pre-election litigation has remained one of the most contentious aspects of Nigeria’s electoral jurisprudence.
Over the years, disputes arising from party primaries, candidate qualification, nomination procedures, and constitutional eligibility have generated conflicting decisions from different courts. Jurisdictional objections have frequently consumed valuable judicial time, often delaying substantive determination of disputes until elections were imminent or already concluded.
The new amendment appears designed to create a single and clearly identifiable pathway for pre-election litigation, reduce forum shopping, and ensure greater consistency in judicial decisions.
By assigning all National Assembly, State Assembly and Governorship pre-election disputes to the Federal High Court, and reserving Presidential pre-election disputes to the Court of Appeal, the amendment seeks to establish certainty regarding where litigants should commence proceedings.
Potential Benefits
The amendment may offer several advantages.
First, it could reduce jurisdictional disputes that frequently delay electoral cases.
Second, it may discourage forum shopping by litigants seeking favourable courts.
Third, concentrating such cases in specific courts may promote consistency and predictability in judicial outcomes.
Fourth, direct commencement of Presidential pre-election disputes at the Court of Appeal may enable faster resolution of cases involving the country’s highest elective office.
These objectives align with longstanding calls by election observers and legal practitioners for a more coherent electoral dispute resolution system.
Concerns and Constitutional Questions
Notwithstanding these potential benefits, several concerns have emerged.
One issue relates to access to justice. By centralising jurisdiction in the Federal High Court for most pre-election disputes, litigants in remote parts of the country may face additional logistical and financial challenges.
Another concern is whether concentrating a potentially large volume of politically sensitive cases in a limited number of courts could create administrative pressure and increase case congestion, particularly in the period immediately preceding elections.
There may also be questions regarding the interaction between the new Electoral Act provisions and Section 285 of the Constitution, which already regulates pre-election matters. Although the amendment expressly references Section 285 of the Constitution, judicial interpretation may still be required to clarify the scope and limits of the new jurisdictional framework.
The Timing Question
Perhaps the most significant issue surrounding the amendment is not its substance but its timing.
Nigeria’s next general election is scheduled for 16 January 2027. Reports indicate that the amendment may receive presidential assent in mid-2026, bringing it into force only a few months before the commencement of electoral activities for the 2027 elections.
This raises questions under the Supplementary Protocol on Democracy and Good Governance of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).
Article 2(1) of the Protocol provides that:
“No substantial modification shall be made to the electoral laws in the last six (6) months before the elections except with the consent of a majority of political actors.”
The rationale behind this provision is straightforward: electoral rules should not be changed close to elections in ways that could affect the predictability, fairness, or credibility of the process.
Whether this amendment constitutes a “substantial modification” is likely to be debated. Supporters may argue that it merely reorganises judicial jurisdiction without altering voting rights, candidate eligibility, electoral administration, or election procedures.
Critics, however, may contend that rules governing electoral dispute resolution are integral components of the electoral framework and that changing the forum, procedure and appellate structure for pre-election litigation can significantly affect electoral outcomes and candidate participation.
The question therefore becomes whether the amendment falls within the category of reforms contemplated by the ECOWAS Protocol and, if so, whether sufficient political consensus exists to justify its adoption at this stage.
Transparency and Legislative Process
Another issue likely to attract attention concerns the legislative process itself.
The House of Representatives passed the amendment on 29 April 2026. Public reports indicate that the Senate has subsequently approved transmission of the Bill to the President for assent. However, questions have been raised regarding whether formal concurrence by the Senate occurred in an open plenary process and whether the legislative record clearly reflects such approval.
Given the sensitivity of electoral legislation, transparency in the legislative process remains critical to public confidence. Electoral reforms derive legitimacy not only from their content but also from the openness and inclusiveness of the process through which they are adopted.
Looking Ahead
If assented to by the President, the amendment will significantly reshape the landscape of pre-election litigation in Nigeria. Courts, political parties, candidates and lawyers will need to adjust quickly to the new jurisdictional framework ahead of the 2027 general elections.
The broader debate, however, extends beyond questions of judicial efficiency. It touches on a fundamental democratic principle: whether electoral rules should be altered close to elections and how Nigeria balances the need for legal reform with the equally important need for electoral certainty.
As preparations for the 2027 elections intensify, the amendment serves as a reminder that electoral credibility depends not only on how votes are cast and counted, but also on the stability, predictability and legitimacy of the legal framework governing the electoral process itself.