The Nigerian Senate has passed the 2026 Electoral Act Amendment Bill, introducing a landmark jurisdictional framework designed to eliminate conflicting court judgments and streamline the adjudication of pre-election matters. The passage followed the presentation of a comprehensive report by the Committee on the Independent National Electoral Commission, led by Chairman Senator Simon Lalong, during plenary on Thursday, May 7, 2026. The proposed legislation specifically targets long-standing gaps and inconsistencies in the resolution of disputes arising from party primaries and candidate nominations. Senator Lalong emphasized that the bill addresses the multiplicity and inconsistency that have historically plagued Nigeria’s electoral jurisprudence. He noted that while democracy relies on the conduct of elections, it is equally dependent on the predictability of the legal processes that precede them.
A key innovation of the bill is the introduction of a new Section 29A and the amendment of Section 29(5) of the Principal Act. The bill clearly defines which courts have the authority to hear specific pre-election cases, a move aimed at stopping the practice of forum shopping—where litigants file similar cases in different judicial divisions to obtain favorable or contradictory orders. Under the new framework, original jurisdiction for presidential and vice presidential disputes is now vested in the Court of Appeal. This means pre-election matters regarding the nation's highest offices will bypass the High Court entirely, with subsequent appeals going directly to the Supreme Court. Conversely, disputes involving the National Assembly, Governorship, and State Assembly will originate at the Federal High Court, with appeals proceeding to the Court of Appeal.
Senator Lalong argued that vesting presidential disputes in the Court of Appeal is rooted in constitutional logic and judicial efficiency, given the national character and sensitivity of such offices. The bill also addresses the territorial challenges faced by litigants. The amendment to Section 29(5) provides that an aspirant may institute an action either in the Federal Capital Territory or within the specific jurisdiction where the cause of action arose. According to the committee, this is a practical and equitable change that improves access to justice by aligning legal proceedings with the geographical realities of political primaries. Lalong stated that where the legal framework regulating pre-election disputes is uncertain, the entire electoral architecture becomes vulnerable to confusion and unnecessary delays.
The bill further stipulates that no court shall entertain pre-election matters except as outlined in the new section, which is intended to introduce procedural discipline. Senator Mohammed Monguno, who seconded the motion for the bill’s passage, described the amendment as apt and germane, noting that it would significantly improve the experience of electoral litigation in Nigeria. Following the successful vote, Senate President Godswill Akpabio commended the committee for their diligent work. He expressed confidence that President Bola Tinubu would assent to the bill, asserting that the new law will deepen democracy and governance by reinforcing public confidence in the electoral process.
With these new jurisdictional boundaries set for pre-election matters, do you believe that moving presidential disputes directly to the Court of Appeal will effectively solve the issue of judicial delays, or does it place an undue burden on a court that is already heavily involved in post-election tribunals?
