Senate passes bill restricting pre-election cases to Federal High Court, Appeal Court
The Senate on Thursday approved a bill seeking to amend the Electoral Act, 2026, to establish a clear jurisdictional framework for the hearing of pre-election matters, with presidential disputes to
- ...presidential disputes to originate at Appeal Court
The Senate on Thursday approved a bill seeking to amend the Electoral Act, 2026, to establish a clear jurisdictional framework for the hearing of pre-election matters, with presidential disputes to originate at the Court of Appeal and other electoral disputes to commence at the Federal High Court.
The proposed amendment bill, which passed both the Second and Third readings, was sponsored by Senator Simon Lalong.
He said the Bill also seeks to allow aspirants to file pre-election suits either in the Federal Capital Territory or in the jurisdiction where the cause of action arose.
In his lead debate during the plenary, Lalong said the amendment was designed to address persistent uncertainty, the multiplicity of suits, and conflicting judicial decisions associated with pre-election matters.
According to him, the bill proposes amendments to Section 29 of the Electoral Act and introduces a new Section 29(a) to clearly define jurisdictional competence in electoral disputes arising before elections.
He said that under the proposed framework, pre-election matters relating to the National Assembly, governorship, and State Houses of Assembly elections would originate in the Federal High Court, with appeals going to the Court of Appeal.
Lalong added that disputes relating to the offices of the President and Vice President would originate in the Court of Appeal, exercising original jurisdiction, while appeals would terminate in the Supreme Court.
The Plateau South lawmaker said the proposal was aimed at promoting judicial efficiency, eliminating forum shopping and ensuring speedy resolution of electoral disputes.
He noted that despite the constitutional recognition of pre-election matters under Section 285(14) of the 1999 Constitution, conflicting interpretations over jurisdiction had continued to generate confusion within the judiciary.
According to him, the uncertainty has resulted in conflicting decisions by courts of coordinate jurisdiction, abuse of judicial process, delays in the resolution of cases and constitutional tensions among courts.
“Democracy thrives not merely on the conduct of elections, but also on the credibility, certainty and predictability of the legal processes that precede those elections,” he said.
Lalong argued that presidential elections were of national character and required the urgent determination by a superior court with nationwide competence.
He said assigning original jurisdiction to the Court of Appeal in presidential pre-election disputes would ensure expeditious handling of sensitive cases, while vesting jurisdiction over other matters in the Federal High Court would promote specialisation and consistency.
The senator also said the bill would eliminate the practice where litigants file multiple suits in different judicial divisions in search of favourable judgments.
He said the amendment expressly provides that no court shall entertain pre-election matters except in accordance with the proposed Section 29(a).
Lalong maintained that electoral matters were time-bound and delays in their resolution could trigger constitutional crises capable of undermining democratic stability.
He said the bill was intended to promote uniformity in electoral adjudication, reduce conflicting judgments, discourage forum shopping and strengthen public confidence in the electoral process.
Following debate on the general principles of the legislation, the Senate approved the bill on second reading, then read it a third time and passed it.
“This Bill is therefore timely, necessary, and in the national interest,” Lalong said while urging lawmakers to support its passage.
