CONTROVESY ERUPTS AS NEW ELECTORAL ACT 2026 NARROWS GROUNDS FOR CHALLENGING ELECTIONS, EXCLUDES CERTIFICATE AND AGE DISPUTES

photo credit the people Gazzete

Abuja, Nigeria — Nigeria’s recently signed 2026 Electoral Act has sparked intense debate, with legal scholars, civil society groups, and political stakeholders warning that the law could undermine electoral accountability by restricting grounds for challenging elections at tribunals.

At the center of the controversy is Section 138, which critics say narrows the grounds on which election results may be contested. The provision omits candidate qualification issues — including allegations of certificate forgery, age falsification, and perjury — as valid bases for election petitions.

Under Section 138(1), an election can only be challenged on two grounds: that it was invalid due to corrupt practices or non-compliance with the Act, or that the respondent was not duly elected by a majority of lawful votes cast. Subsection (3) adds financial penalties, including a minimum of N5 million on counsel and N10 million on petitioners who file outside the prescribed grounds.

Previously, Nigeria’s electoral frameworks explicitly recognised qualification as a ground for petitioning elections, covering falsified documents and age misrepresentation. Critics argue that its removal represents a significant shift in electoral jurisprudence, raising questions about how constitutional disqualifications will be enforced.

Sections 137(1)(j) and 182(1)(j) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) disqualify anyone presenting forged certificates from contesting presidential or gubernatorial elections. Sections 66(1)(i) and 107(1)(i) apply similar restrictions to legislative positions.

RESPONSES FROM LEGAL AND CIVIC GROUPS

“The Constitution is supreme,” said former Minority Leader Olorunnimbe Mamora. “Any provision of an Act that seeks to limit enforcement of constitutional qualification criteria is liable to be struck down.” He urged citizens and professional bodies to challenge the law in court, warning of long-term threats to both democracy and academic integrity if the provisions remain unchecked.

Legal analysts note that Section 138 may force litigants alleging certificate forgery to pursue separate civil or criminal cases, potentially fragmenting post-election accountability and delaying the resolution of qualification disputes. The embedded financial deterrent could also discourage legal challenges, raising concerns about the “chilling effect” on election petitions.

While some scholars believe the courts will reconcile the apparent conflict, Prof. Ayo Olukoju of the University of Lagos called on lawmakers to revisit the provision to ensure it aligns with constitutional requirements.

Prominent voices from civil society and socio-cultural organizations, including Goddy Uwazurike, Isuwa Dogo, and Akin Malaolu, have criticized the Act as potentially undermining democratic safeguards, calling for legal action and civic engagement to address what they describe as dangerous precedents.

Observers insist that the development could ignite a fresh constitutional debate, highlighting tensions between legislative authority and constitutional supremacy in Nigeria’s democratic order. 

---