🌿 Ruzu Non-Alcoholic Herbal Bitters
Ruzu Non-Alcoholic Herbal Bitters is a natural health supplement specially formulated to:
- ✅ Promote general wellness
- ✅ Detoxify the body
- ✅ Support the treatment of various ailments
Made from a powerful blend of 100% organic and medicinal herbs, Ruzu is completely alcohol-free, making it ideal for:
- 👪 All age groups
- 🌱 Health-conscious individuals
- 🌿 Anyone seeking non-alcoholic herbal remedies
Whether you're looking to boost your vitality, cleanse your system, or support healing the natural way, Ruzu Bitters offers a trusted herbal solution.
The Federal High Court, Abuja on Tuesday dismissed a suit filed by the National Democratic Congress (NDC) challenging the provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 on the qualification and disqualification of candidates for elective offices.
In his judgment, Justice Muhammed Umar ruled that the suit, FHC/ABJ/CS/635/2025, was without merit, saying the disputed provisions of the Electoral Act were complementary and not in contradiction with the 1999 Constitution.
It was learnt that the NDC had filed the action against the Attorney General of the Federation, the Clerk of the National Assembly, the President of the Senate, Godswill Akpabio and the Independent National Electoral Commission.
The party instituted a suit before the court seeking, amongst others, the declaration that Sections 138 and 77(5) of the Electoral Act 2026 were unconstitutional.
The plaintiff also sought a declaration from the court that questions regarding the qualification or disqualification of candidates could still be raised after an election.
However, Justice Umar over-ruled preliminary objections raised on the competence of the suit.
The judge ruled that, “the NDC is basically asking for an interpretation of the provisions of the Electoral Act vis-à-vis those of the 1999 Constitution.
“The plaintiff is invoking the interpretative jurisdiction of this honourable court in respect of the provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 on one hand and the 1999 Constitution on the contrary,” Justice Umar said.
The judge also dismissed the argument that the matter was a pre-election matter on the ground alone that the INEC election timetable was attached to the originating summons.
The court said that “the fact that the timetable of the defendant is attached cannot bring the case within the contemplation of Section 285… there is no deposition… which raises questions as to the timetable.”
Justice Umar, in ruling on the preliminary objection filed by the Clerk of the National Assembly, held that the NDC failed to comply with the statutory requirement of serving a pre-action notice before filing the case.
The judge held that the suit against the Clerk was incompetent because of the lack of the requisite notice.
He then dismissed the case against the second defendant.
The failure to serve the pre-action notice “renders this suit incompetent against the second defendant,” the judge said.
On the substantive issues raised in the case, Justice Umar dismissed the argument by the NDC that section 138 of the electoral act was inconsistent with constitutional provisions on the qualification and disqualification of candidates contesting for elective offices.
The judge held that the Constitution provides the qualification and disqualification for elective offices, while the Electoral Act provides the procedure and the time within which to challenge issues arising from the primaries of political parties.
Read Also: JAMB Unveils Five-Pillar Roadmap for the Next Phase of Digital Innovation
“Candidates could not wait until after an election to challenge the qualification of a person who came through a party primary,” he said.
“Any aggrieved party who intends to challenge any candidate that emerged at the primary election of a political party on grounds of disqualification… must do so at the pre-election level,” Justice Umar said.
The judge also ruled that Section 138 of the Electoral Act, as read together with other relevant law, did not violate the Constitution.
The provision of section 138 of the Electoral Act 2026 is complementary to the provision of the Constitution and not in conflict with it. He ruled: “The contention of the plaintiff that Section 138 is inconsistent with the Constitution is of no merit.”
Justice Umar also declined to declare Section 77(5) of the Electoral Act as invalid, saying that the matter had been considered and decided on by the Court of Appeal before.
The judge said the appellate court’s earlier decision still remained binding on the Federal High Court.
He pointed out the value of judicial precedent, noting that “generally, courts are bound by precedent.”
In effect, the Court upheld the contested provisions of the Electoral Act and re-asserted the position that disputes over the qualification or disqualification of candidates emanating from party primaries should be litigated within the prescribed pre-election period.
