By Nemi Tamuno
The amendment to the Electoral Act 2026 has reignited one of Nigeria’s oldest democratic questions: should the law prioritize speed and finality of elections, or should it prioritize integrity and accountability of those who contest them?
At the center of the debate is the removal of certificate forgery and age falsification as grounds for nullifying election results after they have been declared. Under the amended Section 138, an election can now only be challenged on two grounds: corrupt practices or substantial non-compliance, and whether the winner secured the majority of lawful votes. Issues of qualification, including forged certificates, have been reclassified as “pre-election matters” that must be litigated before voting day.
For supporters of the amendment, the logic is procedural. They argue that Nigeria’s tribunals have been clogged for years by post-election cases filed months after results, often with the aim of overturning outcomes on technicalities. By forcing qualification disputes to be settled before the polls, they say, the new law protects the mandate of voters and reduces prolonged litigation that destabilizes governance. The Independent National Electoral Commission has also placed responsibility on political parties to conduct thorough screening of their candidates before primaries.
However, opposition parties, civil society groups, and senior lawyers have described the change as dangerous. The ADC, LP, NNPP and other parties have “kicked against” the exclusion, warning that it sends the wrong signal about credibility and undermines electoral accountability. Legal experts note that evidence of forgery often only emerges during campaigns or after a candidate assumes office. With the new provision, such evidence can no longer be used to void a result, even if proven. The law further imposes fines of not less than N5 million on counsel and N10 million on petitioners who file on grounds outside those recognized, a move critics say is designed to chill legitimate scrutiny.
The deeper contradiction lies in the relationship between the Constitution and the Electoral Act. The 1999 Constitution still disqualifies candidates who present false documents. Yet the 2026 Act removes the judiciary’s power to enforce that disqualification after an election. As one commentator put it, a tribunal can now nullify an election over 500 unstamped ballot papers, but not over a forged WAEC certificate submitted to INEC. That jurisdictional shift has led many to ask whether lawmakers, who are both beneficiaries and architects of the rules, have tilted the law toward self-preservation.
To the closing question — is the bigger risk endless post-election litigation, or closing the door on qualification challenges after results are declared? — the evidence from public reaction suggests Nigerians are more concerned about the latter. Prolonged court cases are a problem, but they are seen as a symptom of weak pre-election screening, not a reason to remove post-election remedies entirely. When voters cast ballots, they assume the candidates on the ballot meet constitutional requirements. To learn months later that a winner was unqualified, and to have no legal recourse, strikes at the heart of public trust.
In effect, the Electoral Act 2026 may run elections faster, but it does so with weaker judicial checks on integrity. Until pre-election verification becomes truly rigorous and transparent, the amendment risks creating a system where the ballot is final, even when the candidate is not qualified. For a democracy still building credibility, that is a trade-off many voters believe Nigeria cannot afford.
Dr. Tamuno is the President, Rural Initiative for Community Empowerment (RICE)
