INTRODUCTION:
On the 18 February 2026, the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Bola Ahmed Tinubu GCFR assented into law an Act to repeal the Electoral Act, No. 13 2022 and enacts the Electoral Act, 2026 to regulate the conduct of the Federal, state and Area councils in the Federal Capital Territory Elections and for related matters.
The Act has wonderful provisions and improvements. However, section 88 of the Act is imbued with ambiguity and the question remains, what was the exact intent of the framers of the said provision.
This paper seeks to address the above question and concern. In doing so, the paper is divided into five sections, after this introduction, section two deals with the section 88(2-4) of the Electoral Act 2026, section three deals with the Discrepancy, section four deals with issues and section five deals with conclusion and recommendation.
SECTION 88(2-4) OF THE ELECTORAL ACT 2026
Section 88(2-4) of the Electoral Act, 2026 states clearly thus:
2) Notwithstanding the provisions of this Act, or rules of a political party, an aspirant who complains that any of the provisions of this Act and the guidelines of a political party have not been complied with in the selection or nomination of a candidate of a political party for election, may apply to the Federal High Court for redress.
3) Where a Court finds that a political party failed to comply with the provisions of this Act in the conduct & its primaries, its candidate for that election shall not be included in the electionfor the particular position in issue.
4) Nothing in this section shall empower the courts to stop the holding of primaries or general elections under this Act pendingthe determination of a suit.
THE DISCREPANCY
The Act under subsection 2 of section 88 empowers an aspirant who feels aggrieved to approach the Federal High Court for redress, hilariously, subsection 4 of the same section 88 turnsaround and oust the jurisdiction of the Hon. Court from restraining the holding of primaries or election that an aspirant complained of.
Another confusion, subsection 3 of section 88 of the Act empowers the court to if it finds out that the complaint is meritorious, by its order, forbids the political party and even the complainant from entirely participating in election in respect to the position in issue.
The provision seems to seek punishment against both the complainant and the political party from which the aspirant comes from or complained of.
This provision seem clearly to me, I think, and in fact, insertedpurposely to scare people from reporting such complaints to court for proper Adjudication.
ISSUES
The provision of section 88 (2-4) of the Electoral 2026 raises does two issues to wit:
1) Whether it forbids technically an aggrieved party from seeking redress in court by technically refusing both the political party and the aggrieved party of a valid and real redress instead.
2. Whether it ousts the jurisdiction of courts from entertaining pre-election matters.
If the above questions are answered in the affirmative the, theentire section 88 of the electoral Act 2026 can be said to be unconstitutional as same conflicts, and is in fact, inconsistentwith the provision of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) particularly section 36 and section 6 of the 1999 constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended.
It is the submission of the author that no one has the powers to forbid one from approaching a court of competent jurisdiction to adjudicate over a matter and that no Act or Law can oust the constitutional jurisdiction of the court.
The above position taken by the author represents the law till date and same was eloquently explained and applied by the Supreme Court in the case of AHMED& ORS V. REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF ARCHDIOCESE OF KADUNA OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH (2019) LPGHR-46414(SC) and see also Section 1(3) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended.
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION:
This paper examines Section 88 of the Electoral Act, 2026, the paper clearly reveals that the provision of section 88 (2-4) breaches the constitutional provisions by ousting the constitutional jurisdiction of the Court and the litigants and in doing, the provision is void by virtue of Section 1 (3) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended.
The constitution empowers all persons by virtue of sections 6 and 36 to approach courts of competent jurisdiction at all times to have their matters heard without fear or favor. It is recommended that, the framers of the electoral Act should quickly review the provision of the electoral Act in question to reflect the reality.
