Despite the provision’s apparent straightforwardness, legal practitioners have presented differing interpretations. Some argue that the FCT should not be treated as a state superior to others. They contend that the intent of the law is to avoid undue concentration of votes in one region, promoting inclusivity and fair representation for all states. This view emphasizes the need for a candidate to secure votes from multiple states to be declared duly elected.

On the other hand, proponents of the alternative interpretation assert that the FCT should be regarded as the 37th state. They argue that since the Constitution designates the FCT as the seat of the federal government, it deserves to be treated on equal footing with the other states. According to this perspective, a candidate could meet the 25 percent requirement by obtaining the necessary votes solely in the FCT.

Given the contentious nature of the interpretation, it is imperative for the National Assembly to address and clarify this issue through legislation. Amending the provision would provide much-needed clarity, preventing any ambiguity in future elections. Such legislative action would reaffirm the spirit of the Constitution, promoting equal representation and avoiding potential challenges to the election results.

The outcome of this trial holds significant implications for future electoral laws and regulations. Depending on the court’s decision, it may set a precedent for subsequent election-related cases. Clarity on the status of the FCT and its relation to other states will shape how candidates strategize their campaigns in future presidential elections. If the interpretation leans towards treating the FCT as a separate state, candidates may focus more on garnering support from the FCT to meet the vote requirement.