NASS Plan To Hold General Elections In November 2026 Triggers Fresh Controversies.

Nass.

The National Assembly’s proposal to conduct the next presidential, governorship, and legislative elections in November next year has generated widespread debate, especially from a coalition supported by the African Democratic Congress, ADC.

Federal lawmakers have suggested that the upcoming general elections should take place six months before the end of the current administration’s term, rather than the traditional February or March period used in the past.

According to a draft amendment to the 2022 Electoral Act, the proposal seeks to ensure that elections for the positions of President and Governors are held no later than 185 days before the expiration of the incumbents’ tenure. The proposed date for the elections is November 20, 2026.

However, this move has met opposition from several Nigerians who believe that such an arrangement would disrupt governance if approved.

Critics argue that if the proposal becomes law, the current political leaders, including the President and State Governors, would abandon governance to focus on campaigns, thereby depriving citizens of good governance and worsening their economic hardship.

They also expressed concern that if elections are scheduled for November next year, state funds meant for developmental projects would likely be diverted to finance election activities instead of being used for infrastructure and public services.

On the other hand, supporters of the proposal insist that it would provide sufficient time to conclude all election-related court cases before newly elected leaders are sworn in.

They argue that it is inappropriate for a person to occupy the position of President or Governor while simultaneously defending election petitions in court, often using government resources for such purposes.

They also criticised the current practice where individuals are sometimes removed from office two years after being sworn in, following court rulings, saying it is unhealthy for democracy and allows the wrong individuals to govern citizens and make major decisions for years before being removed.

Meanwhile, those in favour of the new timeline believe it would help minimise electoral misconduct.

Their reasoning is that holding presidential and gubernatorial elections on the same day would eliminate the tendency of Presidents influencing outcomes for Governors, and vice versa.

A Lagos-based lawyer, Kayode Akiolu, who is a key supporter of the plan, explained how it would help reduce manipulation if adopted.

He said: “This will actually reduce or even eliminate, to some extent, electoral fraud because while the president will be busy fighting for his survival and not remembering that any governor exists, the governors will also be busy fighting for their survival, not equally remembering that the president exists.

“For instance, if both governorship and presidential elections were held on the same day during the 2023 election, somebody like Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu of Lagos State would not have won the election; he would have lost to the Labour Party, LP, candidate Rhodes Vivour.

“This is simple; the LP won the presidential election fair and square in Lagos but because the then candidate of the All Progressives Congress, APC, Bola Tinubu was declared the winner of the presidential election, the party had to deploy federal forces to ensure that the APC candidate, Sanwo-Olu won the election.

“If both elections were held the same day, Tinubu would not have had the time to help Sanwo-Olu in any way and the governor would have been defeated just as the president was defeated in the state. This scenario applied in some other states.”

To support his argument, Agbaje also cited examples of relatively unknown candidates who won both state and national assembly elections under less popular political parties because presidential and national assembly elections, as well as governorship and state assembly polls, were held on the same day.

He said: “You discover that because the president was focusing on his own election, he didn’t care about any legislator’s victory, just as the legislators didn’t care about the president’s victory but their own victory on election day.

“They may have campaigned for the president before the election but on that Election Day, when they engage in all sorts of electoral malpractices, they don’t remember the president again; it is their own personal survival that they are interested in. That is why in 2023 and even previous elections, many candidates from the main opposition party and even unknown parties were able to win elections into both the state and national assemblies.

“If Presidential and national assembly elections were to be held on different days, you would see that any party that wins the presidency would automatically take over 95 percent of the national assembly seats but because they are held on the same day, you always see candidates from different political parties winning, depending on how popular such candidates are to their constituents.”

Section 4(7) of the proposed amendment provides that: “Elections into the office of the President and Governor of a state shall be held, not later than 185 days before the expiration of the term of office of the last holder of the office.” Based on this, the 2027 general elections would take place in November 2026.

The proposed amendment was revealed during a one-day public hearing organised by the Joint Committee on Electoral Matters of both chambers of the National Assembly. Lawmakers also proposed a similar timeline for legislative elections at both the federal and state levels, stating that they too should be conducted not later than 185 days before the end of each house’s tenure.

Chairman of the House Committee on Electoral Matters, Adebayo Balogun, explained that the date change was intended to solve one of Nigeria’s major electoral problems — the delay in resolving post-election disputes.

He said: “We are proposing this adjustment to allow enough time for all election cases to be concluded before the swearing-in of elected officials.

“To achieve this, we are also proposing to reduce the duration of tribunal and appellate court judgments, so that all election disputes will be resolved within the 185-day window before inauguration.”

Balogun further explained that under the proposed review, the time limit for election tribunals to deliver their verdicts would be cut from 180 days to 90 days, while appeals at the Appellate Court would be concluded within 60 days, allowing the Supreme Court enough time to issue final judgments.

To accommodate the shift, the Joint Committee also proposed amending sections 76, 116, 132, and 178 of the 1999 Constitution, transferring the authority to fix election dates from the Constitution to the Electoral Act.

According to the draft, “Section 28, now section 27 (5–7), was introduced due to the amendments to sections 76, 116, 132 and 178 of the Constitution, which seek to remove the determination of election timelines from the Constitution to the Electoral Act.”

Apart from the proposed change in election dates, lawmakers also suggested early voting for categories of Nigerians who perform essential duties on election days.

Section (2) of the draft amendment provides: “There shall be a date set aside for early voting not later than 14 days to the day of the election.”

Those eligible for early voting include security personnel, INEC staff, accredited domestic observers, journalists, and the commission’s ad hoc workers.

Nevertheless, the proposal has faced stiff resistance from some Nigerians and the ADC, which warned that it could destabilise governance.

In a statement, ADC’s interim national publicity secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, argued that holding general elections in November would lead to continuous political campaigns and cripple the country’s governance and development.

The party urged the National Assembly to abandon the idea and instead focus on genuine electoral and judicial reforms that would ensure credible elections and the timely resolution of petitions without undermining governance.

The ADC further stated that although the bill aims to allow more time for election petitions to be concluded before the next administration is inaugurated, it could create more problems than it seeks to resolve.

It stated: “By cutting the current political calendar by six months, the proposal threatens to push Nigeria into a state of permanent electioneering, where politics dominates governance and development is perpetually on hold.

“In practice, elections happening in November 2026 mean campaigns will begin as early as 2025. That leaves barely two years of real governance before the political noise takes over.

“The President, ministers, governors and other public officials vying for office or campaigning for others will shift their focus from performance to positioning. Policies will stall, projects will be abandoned, and the entire system will tilt towards 2026 instead of 2027.

“Even without the amendments, we can see with the current APC government what happens to a country where an administration is obsessed with power rather than the welfare of the people. Even under the current timetable, the incumbent structures at the state and federal levels are already campaigning. In this regard, moving the elections backward will only accelerate this unhealthy trend and reduce our democracy to mere electioneering.”

The party stressed that Nigerians are not only voters but citizens who expect good governance as a core dividend of democracy. “Nigeria cannot afford a system that allows the government to campaign for two years and govern for two,” it cautioned.

Supporting the ADC’s stance, public affairs analyst Prince Johnson Meekor argued that if the true aim of the proposal is to ensure that election petitions are concluded before swearing-in, then the real solution lies in institutional reform, strengthening electoral laws, and improving the efficiency of the judiciary and INEC.

He said: “Other democracies have shown that it is possible to maintain fixed electoral timelines, while ensuring quick adjudication of disputes. In Kenya, for instance, the Supreme Court must resolve presidential election petitions within 14 days under the 2010 Constitution.

“Indonesia’s Constitutional Court decides similar disputes within 14 working days after hearing, while Ghana’s Supreme Court is required to conclude presidential petitions within 42 days. Even in South Africa and other democracies, electoral cases are handled through expedited judicial processes.

“As these examples have shown, the amendment that we need is the one which ensures timely electoral justice through institutional efficiency, not by altering the election calendar to accommodate inefficiency.

“Changing the date of elections without fixing the underlying weaknesses in our electoral matters adjudication and other fundamental electoral weaknesses will not solve the problem. Countries that manage early campaigns effectively do so with firm institutional safeguards,” he concluded.