Nigerian Advocacy Group Condemns National Assembly Over Exclusion of Certificate Forgery From Electoral Act 2026

The Yoruba Ronu Forum criticizes Nigeria's National Assembly for removing certificate forgery as grounds for election petitions in the 2026 Electoral Act.

By: AXL Media

Published: Mar 19, 2026, 7:08 AM EDT

Source: The information in this article was sourced from Daily Post Nigeria

Legislative Shift Sparks Outcry Over Candidate Accountability

The Yoruba Ronu Leadership Forum has publicly challenged the National Assembly following the emergence of details surrounding the Electoral Act 2026, according to statements from the group. The core of the grievance centers on the deliberate omission of certificate forgery and general qualification issues as valid legal grounds for contesting election results. By narrowing the scope of admissible petitions, the new framework effectively shields candidates from scrutiny regarding their academic credentials. This development marks a significant departure from prior electoral standards, where the authenticity of a candidate's background served as a primary pillar for legal challenges in the aftermath of a vote.

Concerns Over Fragmented Disclosure of New Legal Frameworks

Akin Malaolu, the President of the Yoruba Ronu Leadership Forum, has called upon the Federal Government to provide a comprehensive and transparent release of the amended legislation in its entirety. The forum expressed frustration with the current method of disseminating the law in fragments, which they believe obscures the full impact of the changes following presidential assent. According to Malaolu, a holistic view of the document is necessary to understand how the legislative branch is reshaping the rules of engagement for future political contests. The group maintains that the public has a right to see the full text to ensure that the spirit of the law aligns with the expectations of the Nigerian electorate.

The Strategic Narrowing of Admissible Election Dispute Grounds

Analysis of the amended law highlights Section 138(1) as a particular point of contention, as it restricts election disputes to only two specific categories. Under the new rules, a petitioner may only claim that an election is invalid due to corrupt practices or non-compliance with the act, or assert that a candidate was not elected by a majority of lawful votes. By omitting the previous criteria regarding a candidate's qualification, the legislature has significantly raised the bar for those seeking to challenge the legitimacy of an opponent based on personal history. This narrowing of legal pathways suggests a strategic attempt to reduce the volume of post election litigation, though critics argue it comes at the cost of transparency.