A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has ruled that the timetable issued by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) must comply strictly with the timeframes in the Electoral Act, 2026.

It also affirmed the powers of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to issue timetables for elections and alter it as it deems fit but must be in agreement with the Electoral Act.

This is coming days after another Federal High Court in Abuja, nullified the INEC guidelines for the 2027 general elections. In his ruling last Thursday, Justice Mohammed Umar said the guidelines by INEC must be in tandem with the provisions of the Electoral Act and that what it is currently working with violates the law. The suit was filed by Youth Party.

And in the Monday judgement, Justice James Omotosho made the declaration while delivering ruling in a suit filed by the Social Democratic Party (SDP) against INEC in the case marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/720/2026.

Daily Trust reports that the SDP had, in the originating summons filed on April 9, posed five questions for determination.

One of the questions was “whether having regard to Sections 82 and 84(1) of the Electoral Act, 2026, the defendant’s powers to receive notices, attend, observe and monitor party primaries extend to fixing or prescribing the timetable within which political parties must conduct their primaries.”

The plaintiff, therefore, sought seven reliefs, including an order of perpetual injunction restraining the electoral umpire from enforcing any timelines inconsistent with the Electoral Act, 2026.

It also prayed the court to declare that “the defendant cannot lawfully abridge or vary the 120 days statutory period in section 29(1) of the Electoral Act, 2026 by its timetable or press release dated 27th March, 2026.”

But INEC, in its defence, stated that its powers are not limited to receiving notices and attending primary elections, but to organise and supervise elections and issue timetables to ensure compliance with the Electoral Act.

It stated that the timetable so issued would not interfere with the internal affairs of the plaintiff (SDP) and that the primaries of the SDP had yet to start.

It further argued that its timetable released did not conflict with the provisions of the constitution and the Electoral Act and similarly did not bridge the timeline of the party.

INEC, which argued that the suit was premature and academic, urged the court to dismiss it.

But delivering his judgement, Justice Omotosho held in a Certified True Copies (CTC), which was obtained by Daily Trust on Tuesday, that the defendant cannot lawfully abridge or vary the 90 days period for substitution of candidates under Section 31 of the Electoral Act, 2026.

He held thus: “THIS HONOURABLE COURT DECLARES THAT the press statement of 27 March, 2026 originated this action, consequently this suit is not statute barred having been filed on the 9, April, 2026.

“THIS HONOURABLE COURT HEREBY DECLARES THAT Election Timetable is a chain of events or actions which include submission of membership register of political parties to be used for the purpose of primaries and fix Timeframes within which political parties are to organize their primary Elections for the purpose of the stated 2027 Election.

“THIS HONOURABLE COURT HEREBY DECLARES that the Independent National Electoral Commission is empowered by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and the Electoral Act, 2026 to issue timetable for elections and to even alter same as it deems fit. However, the timetable must comply strictly with the timeframes in the Electoral Act, 2026.”

“THIS HONOURABLE COURT HEREBY DECLARES THAT the Defendant is also empowered to alter the timetable for the ultimate aim of giving effect to the provisions of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and Electoral Act.)

“THIS HONOURABLE COURT HEREBY DECLARES THAT the timetable for the conduct of the 2027 General Election issued by the Defendant is valid and legally issued, stating timeframe within which political parties are to hold their primaries and stating timeframe for the submission of membership registers of political parties.

“THIS HONOURABLE COURT HEREBY DECLARES that the Defendant cannot lawfully abridge or vary the 90 days period for substitution of candidates under Section 31 of the Electoral Act, 2026.

“THIS HONOURABLE COURT HEREBY DECLARES THAT the Defendant cannot abridge the time stipulated in section 29(1) of the Electoral Act 2026 given to political parties to submit the names of their candidates at (least 120 days to the date of Election.

“THIS HONOURABLE COURT HEREBY DECLARES THAT the Defendant is hereby ordered to amend the Election Timetable”.

Section 29(1) of the Electoral Act, 2026 provides that: “Every political party shall, not later than 120 days before the date appointed for a general election under this Act, submit to the Commission, in the prescribed Forms, the list of the candidates the party proposes to sponsor at the elections, who shall have emerged from valid primaries conducted by the political party.”

Section 31 of the Act states that: “A candidate may withdraw his candidature by notice in writing signed by him together with a sworn affidavit delivered personally by the candidate to the political party that nominated him for the election and the political party shall convey such withdrawal and the sworn affidavit to the Commission not later than 90 days to the election.”

The judge, however, upheld INEC’s authority to request party membership registers and prescribe time frames for primaries.

“The Defendant requesting for membership register of political parties and giving time frame within which to conduct primaries is not ultra vires the powers of the Defendant,” the court ruled.

The Court also voided the deadlines earlier fixed by INEC for submission of nomination forms.

“The deadline of 29th August 2026 and 16th September 2026 fixed for political parties to submit nomination forms for candidates for Presidential and National Assembly Elections as well as Governorship and House of Assembly Elections is void to the extent of its inconsistencies with the clear provisions of Section 29(1) of the Electoral Act 2026,” the judgment read.

Appearing for the SDP were Rilwan Okpanachi Esq and D.O Anyebe Esq, while Alex Iziyon (SAN), alongside other counsel, represented INEC.

Previous judgement

On May 22, a Federal High Court in Abuja, nullified portions of the revised timetable and schedule of activities issued by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) for political parties ahead of the 2027 general elections.

The court had held that the timelines released by INEC for political parties to conduct primaries, submit membership registers, withdraw and substitute candidates, among others, were inconsistent with provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026.

Under the revised timetable released by INEC, political parties were directed to submit their membership registers not later than May 10, 2026, while all primaries were expected to be concluded by May 31, 2026.

The commission had also insisted that political parties must give 21 days’ notice before primaries and that only party members whose names appeared in the registers earlier submitted to INEC would be eligible to participate in the exercises.

However, Justice Mohammed Umar, in the judgement delivered in suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/517/2026 filed by the Youth Party, ruled that INEC lacked the statutory powers to fix or prescribe the timeframe within which political parties must conduct primaries for nomination of candidates for the 2027 general elections.

The court declared that INEC could not lawfully abridge the 120-day statutory period provided under Section 29(1) of the Electoral Act for submission of personal particulars of candidates, the 90-day timeline under Section 31 for withdrawal and substitution of candidates, and the 60-day minimum period under Section 32 for publication of final list of candidates.

Justice Umar subsequently set aside portions of INEC’s revised timetable and schedule of activities considered inconsistent with the Electoral Act, 2026.

Following the judgement, political parties effectively have up till September 2026, to submit updated membership registers and make changes to party membership records ahead of the 2027 polls.

But on May 25, INEC filed a notice of appeal challenging the judgement and also sought a stay of execution pending the determination of the appeal.

The commission, through its legal team led by Alex Izinyon (SAN), argued that the judgement was against the weight of evidence presented before the court and urged the Court of Appeal to set aside the verdict.

INEC maintained that the lower court erred in holding that it lacked powers to impose timelines for political parties to conduct primaries ahead of the 2027 elections.

The commission also contended that the suit instituted by the Youth Party was hypothetical and academic, insisting that the party lacked the locus standi to institute and maintain the action.

INEC further faulted the trial court’s interpretation of Sections 29(1), 82 and 84 of the Electoral Act, 2026, and urged the appellate court to strike out the suit and overturn the judgement.

INEC cautioned against appeal

A political analyst, Professor Saleh Dauda, has cautioned INEC against appealing the judgement voiding its 2027 nomination timetable, warning that such a move could raise questions about the commission’s neutrality.

Speaking in an interview with our correspondent, Dauda argued that any attempt by INEC to challenge the ruling could be interpreted as the electoral body acting in favour of political interests rather than maintaining its constitutional independence.

“If it appeals, it means the body is doing somebody’s bidding,” he said.

He stressed that INEC, as a statutory and supposedly neutral institution, should strictly adhere to the provisions of the Electoral Act, rather than engage in prolonged legal battles over a timetable that the court has already found wanting.

“INEC is supposed to be a neutral body. What is difficult in following the election guidelines as prescribed by the Electoral Act? Is there anything wrong with that? Why is INEC finding it difficult to abide by the Electoral Act?,” he said.

Dauda maintained that unless the Electoral Act is declared invalid by a competent court, it remains the governing legal framework for elections in Nigeria, adding that compliance should be mandatory for all institutions involved in the electoral process.

On the wider implications of the judgement, the analyst said the ruling underscores the supremacy of the rule of law and the principle that no government agency is above judicial authority.

“The court judgement signifies that no agency of government is above the law. Under a democratic dispensation, the rule of law must prevail,” he said.

“The rule of law has triumphed and whatever the judgement is, the parties must obey.”

He further argued that the judgement could reshape political alignments ahead of the 2027 general elections, noting that the extension of the electoral timetable may provide more room for realignments and defections.

According to him, the development could have greater impact on the ruling party, as dissatisfied aspirants may seek alternative platforms to pursue their ambitions.

“Politicians now have ample opportunity to go to other political parties. We are going to witness more people joining other political parties in order to test their political waters.

“It is going to affect the ruling party more because more people are likely to move out from it.”

He cited recent high-profile defections as early signs of possible wider political shifts, pointing to movements by prominent political figures across parties in different parts of the country.

On the aspect of the ruling that upheld INEC’s authority to regulate party primaries while nullifying parts of its timetable, Dauda described the judgement as largely balanced.

“The timetable as prescribed by the Electoral Act should remain, but INEC also has the power to regulate party affairs. What it has no power to do is to change the timetable as prescribed by the Electoral Act,” he said.

“So to me, it is a win-win. INEC has not lost completely.”

INEC overreached by fixing timelines for primaries — Situation Room

Reacting to the development, the Convener of the Nigeria Civil Society Situation Room and Executive Director of the Centre for Information Technology and Development (CITAD), Dr. Yunusa Zakari Ya’u, described INEC’s guidelines as an “overreach” and an attempt to micro manage political parties.

He said the electoral body’s constitutional role in relation to party primaries is limited to observing the process and ensuring compliance with statutory timelines, particularly the requirement for 21 days’ notice for primaries and the 120-day deadline for submission of candidates list.

“What INEC did in terms of compelling political parties to conduct primaries at a certain time, that is in variance with the dates that the law has provided, I think it’s an overreach. It’s an attempt at micromanaging political parties,” he said.

Dr. Ya’u argued that INEC’s responsibility should not extend to fixing specific dates for party conventions or primaries, insisting that such actions are not supported by the Electoral Act, 2026.

“I think the INEC role should remain specifically two. One is that they be present at the convention and that, of course, requires the parties providing notice of 21 days or so as the law requires. And secondly, that all parties have to submit their candidates 120 days or so before the election,” he explained.

He maintained that while the court judgement aligns with the law, it does not automatically guarantee full compliance with the Electoral Act by political actors.

“Judgements are one thing. Compliance with the Electoral Act is another thing. Compliance requires different actors to actually comply with all the provisions of the law,” he said.

According to him, the ruling mainly clarifies the limits of INEC’s interpretative powers rather than resolving broader compliance challenges in the electoral system.

“What the judgement has done is that it has shown that INEC has a limit to the extent to which it can self-interpret its own law. And I think that is a good development,” he added.

On INEC’s decision to appeal the judgement, Dr. Ya’u said the commission is within its legal rights, but warned that persistent disputes over electoral interpretation could raise public suspicion.

“Ordinarily, I don’t see any reason for them to appeal. But, of course, appealing is their sole right. If somebody takes you to court, he gets a judgement, then you have the right to appeal,” he said.

He, however, noted that continued appeals on what he described as “straightforward legal provisions” may fuel public distrust in the electoral process.

“The fact that they are insisting leaves them open to suspicion by other people, that they are playing a script. But as I said, it is their right,” he added.

Dr. Ya’u advised INEC to accept the court’s interpretation and focus on stabilising the electoral process ahead of 2027.

“If I were INEC, I would simply accept this interpretation and things go on. We have to see an end to this,” he said.

Don’t rely on court judgement – Lawmaker warns parties

A chieftain of the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC), Senator Victor Umeh, has warned political parties against relying solely on the recent Federal High Court judgement extending the deadline for submission of party membership registers, saying parties must still comply with the timetable released by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

Umeh, representing Anambra Central Senatorial District in the 10th Senate, who spoke to journalists shortly before the inauguration of the screening committee of the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) at the party’s secretariat in Abuja, said although the court judgement was well-considered, it remained a High Court decision that could still be overturned on appeal, making it risky for political parties to relax their preparations.

“For the fact that it is the judgement of the first court, the High Court, it will be very risky for any party to begin to relax and say the deadline has been extended,” he said.

“If INEC appeals and the judgement is overturned, parties that delayed their processes will be like fish out of water. So every sensible party should conclude its processes within the present INEC timetable.”

Umeh said the NDC would conclude its governorship, National Assembly and other primaries on May 28, while the party’s presidential primary would hold between May 29 and 30.

Though the Publicity Secretary of the All Progressives Party (APC) could not be reached, a chieftain of the party, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said even though the party had updated its records with the INEC, it welcomes the judgement. (Daily Trust)