Federal High Court Implements New Guidelines for Pre-Election Disputes
The Federal High Court has unveiled new practice guidelines designed to manage pre-election disputes effectively, replacing the 2022 version. These changes introduce comprehensive measures that aim to ensure a prompt, efficient, and equitable adjudication of election-related cases as future elections approach.
The updated Federal High Court (Pre-Election) Practice Direction for 2026 was announced by Chief Justice Hon. Judge John Terhemba Tsoho and became effective on June 29, 2026.
A press release issued by Dr. Catherine Obey Christopher, the Director of Information at the Federal High Court, noted that these guidelines are intended to facilitate the expeditious resolution of pre-election matters in accordance with the amended 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the Elections Act of 2026, and other relevant laws.
The newly introduced guidelines revoke the previous Federal High Court (Pre-Election) Practice Direction from 2022 and present a revised structure aimed at enhancing the management of pre-election litigation.
One of the significant innovations is the directive that Federal High Courts across the country will remain open from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. on Saturdays, Sundays, and public holidays specifically for the filing of pre-election cases. This measure is intended to ensure that litigants are not hindered by the constitutional deadlines surrounding election disputes.
The new Practice Direction authorizes judges overseeing pre-election matters to leverage technology in their proceedings, including the allowance for virtual hearings when suitable.
Additionally, presiding judges will have the authority to appoint other judges to hear pre-election cases in various branches of the court and to transfer cases as needed, promoting efficient case management and timely resolution of disputes arising from party primaries and other pre-election issues.
According to the guidelines, all pre-election lawsuits must be initiated by the party originating the subpoena unless they allege fraud or forgery. In such instances, detailed claims must be supported by oral or documentary evidence.
The Practice Directions specify strict timeframes for filing court proceedings. Defendants are required to appear in court within seven days and file a defense within 10 days of being served. Conversely, applicants may respond within three days if needed.
The court further encourages efficient communication by mandating that address letters be succinctly typed in 12-point font and not exceed 15 double-spaced pages, thereby helping to minimize lengthy legal arguments.
In a move to reduce delays traditionally associated with election litigation, the guidelines stipulate that no party may seek more than two adjournments during proceedings. Furthermore, requests for postponements will not be entertained on pre-scheduled public hearing dates.
If a party changes legal representation during the case, the court has limited the associated adjournments to a maximum of two. The Practice Direction also instructs the court to prioritize pre-election litigation until a decision is reached and mandates that judges schedule a hearing within seven days after all necessary formalities have been exchanged.
If a notified party does not attend the hearing, the court is permitted to assume that the party’s written address has been adopted, allowing the case to proceed.
The court has acknowledged the use of electronic communications in pre-election proceedings. Judges can notify attorneys of emergency court events via email or other electronic methods, provided the notice is sent at least 48 hours prior to the court date. Parties are also required to give a valid telephone number and email address to the court registry.
Regarding interlocutory applications, the Practice Direction reinforces the constitutional mandate that preliminary oppositions and jurisdictional issues should typically be resolved concurrently with the main proceedings, unless they pertain to the service of process.
Requests for extensions of time must be submitted on notice and supported by an affidavit detailing substantial and verifiable reasons for any delays. Moreover, the guidelines encourage judges to explore amicable settlements before full trial proceedings, if feasible.
While the new guidelines preserve all cases initiated before their implementation, they equip the courts with the authority to issue appropriate directives to ensure compliance with the revised procedural framework.
The Federal High Court emphasized that the primary goal of the new Practice Direction is to guarantee a fair, impartial, and prompt resolution of pre-election disputes, thereby minimizing delays and interlocutory applications while enabling parties to focus solely on genuinely contentious matters.
