Certificate Forgery, The Electoral Act 2026, And What It Really Means

Prince Chris Azor

The claim going around that certificate forgery is no longer a ground for challenging an election needs to be clarified properly so people are not misled or pushed into frustration.

Under the Electoral Act 2022, you could challenge an election at the tribunal if a candidate was “not qualified.” That covered cases of certificate forgery because presenting a forged document means the person was never qualified in the first place. The Act also allowed pre-election cases where false information or forged documents were submitted.

The Electoral Act 2026 has changed that structure. The grounds for election petitions have now been narrowed mainly to issues like non-compliance with the law and whether the winner actually got the lawful votes. The earlier ground based on qualification is no longer listed. In simple terms, you can no longer go to an election tribunal and rely on certificate forgery alone to challenge the result.

That is where many people stop, and that’s where the confusion starts.

The Constitution of the Federal Republic (as amended) still says clearly that anyone who presents a forged certificate is disqualified from holding office. This applies whether it is for President, Governor, National Assembly, or State Assembly. The Constitution remains the supreme law, grund norm. If any other law contradicts it, the Constitution prevails.

So forgery has not been legalized. It has not been excused. What has changed is the route for dealing with it.
If there is a forgery issue now, it has to be pursued differently. It can be taken up before the election through a court case challenging a candidate’s qualification. It can be pursued directly under the Constitution by asking the court to declare the person disqualified. It can also lead to criminal prosecution, because forgery remains a crime under Nigerian law.

There will likely be legal battles around whether a person who is constitutionally disqualified can still be treated as validly elected. That question will eventually be settled by the higher courts.

From a citizen’s point of view, this change raises concern. It makes accountability harder by removing a straightforward path at the tribunal stage. It shifts the burden to pre-election cases, which are often rushed, technical, and not always accessible to ordinary people.

The important thing to hold on to is this. Forgery still disqualifies. The Constitution has not changed. What has changed is the process, and that shift may create loopholes if it is not challenged or clarified.

This is where citizens, Civil Society, the media, professional bodies, and Political Parties all have a role to play. There has to be stronger public awareness so people understand their rights and act early. Candidate screening must be taken more seriously within Parties. Civil Society and the Media must keep shining light on questionable credentials. Legal practitioners and institutions must be ready to test and clarify these issues in court. And citizens must stay engaged, not just during elections, but long before the ballots are cast.

The integrity of the electoral system does not rest on laws alone. It depends on how alert and demanding the public is, and how willing institutions are to uphold the Constitution.

So the viral claim is only partly true. Yes, tribunals are now restricted. But no, forgery has not become irrelevant. It remains a serious legal issue, one that now requires earlier action, closer scrutiny, and a more vigilant citizenry to keep the system honest.