The Senate has passed the 2026 Electoral Act Amendment Bill aimed at clarifying court jurisdiction in the handling of pre-election disputes across the country.
The bill was passed during plenary on Thursday following the presentation and consideration of a report by the Senate Committee on the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
Chairman of the committee, Simon Lalong, presented the report and led debate on the proposed amendment.
The legislation seeks to address legal gaps, timelines and jurisdictional conflicts associated with the resolution of pre-election matters.
Presenting the committee’s position, Lalong said the amendment was designed to tackle persistent constitutional and procedural challenges in Nigeria’s electoral legal system.
According to him, uncertainty over which courts should entertain pre-election matters had continued to generate conflicting judgments, delays and abuse of judicial processes.
He stressed that credible elections depend not only on voting processes but also on transparent and predictable legal procedures leading to elections.
“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.
“The legitimacy of candidates and the integrity of party primaries are foundational pillars of representative democracy,” he said.
Lalong warned that conflicting legal interpretations on pre-election matters had exposed the nation’s electoral process to confusion and forum shopping by litigants seeking favourable court decisions.
“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 added.
The senator explained that the bill proposed amendments to Section 29 of the Electoral Act and introduced a new Section 29A to establish a clearer framework for determining jurisdiction in pre-election cases.
He said the amendment became necessary despite the provisions of Section 285(14) of the 1999 Constitution relating to pre-election matters.
According to him, the legal system had continued to witness conflicting interpretations by courts regarding jurisdiction.
“The uncertainty results in conflicting decisions from courts of coordinate jurisdiction and abuse of judicial process.
“It also results in undue delay in the resolution of electoral disputes and avoidable constitutional tension between courts,” Lalong said.
He noted that the proposed amendment would provide clarity, consistency and constitutional harmony in electoral adjudication.
Giving details of the amendment, Lalong said Clause Two of the bill seeks to amend Section 29(5) of the principal Act by allowing aspirants to institute cases either in the Federal Capital Territory or in the jurisdiction where the cause of action arose.
“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,” he stated.
He further explained that the newly proposed Section 29A constituted the major innovation of the bill.
According to him, pre-election disputes relating to National Assembly, governorship and state assembly elections would originate at the Federal High Court, with appeals going to the Court of Appeal.
He added that disputes involving presidential and vice-presidential elections would originate directly at the Court of Appeal, which would exercise original jurisdiction, while appeals would proceed to the Supreme Court.
Lalong said the arrangement was based on constitutional logic, judicial efficiency and respect for the hierarchy of courts.
“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,” he said.
He also noted that assigning jurisdiction over other pre-election matters to the Federal High Court would encourage specialisation and consistency in electoral adjudication.
The senator said the amendment would also curb the practice of litigants filing multiple cases in different courts in search of favourable rulings.
“Such practices erode public confidence in the judiciary and undermine electoral stability,” he said.
Lalong added that the bill would establish a clearer judicial pathway capable of reducing delays and improving efficiency in handling electoral disputes.
“The amendment before us is not merely procedural, it is institutional.
“It strengthens electoral justice, deepens democratic accountability and reinforces public confidence in our electoral process,” he stated.
Supporting the bill, Senator Mohammed Monguno described the proposed amendment as timely and necessary.
According to him, the legislation would improve Nigeria’s experience in electoral litigation and strengthen the administration of justice during elections.
Following deliberations, the Senate passed the bill.
President of the Senate, Godswill Akpabio, commended the committee for its work on the legislation.
Akpabio expressed confidence that President Bola Tinubu would assent to the bill, adding that the amendment would further strengthen democracy and governance in the country.
