A day after the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) appealed the verdict of a Federal High Court that voided its timeline on party register and election guidelines, seeking a stay of execution of that judgment, another Federal High Court in Abuja yesterday upheld INEC’s authority to fix timelines for political party primaries ahead of the 2027 general elections.
The court, however, voided two of the Commission’s key deadlines for candidate submissions, ruling they violated statutory provisions of the Electoral Act 2026, reports The Guardian.
Justice James Omotosho, who delivered the judgment in a suit filed by the Social Democratic Party (SDP), which had challenged aspects of INEC’s timetable and schedule of activities for the 2027 elections, ordered the INEC to amend aspects of its timetable and schedule of activities for the 2027 general elections, holding that the electoral body must strictly comply with timelines stipulated in the Electoral Act 2026.
The judge held that while INEC possesses constitutional and statutory powers to issue and adjust election timetables, such powers are not absolute and must align with the provisions of the law.
The court specifically faulted portions of the timetable that shortened the statutory period granted to political parties for the submission and substitution of candidates.
Justice Omotosho declared that INEC cannot lawfully abridge the 120 days provided under Section 29(1) of the Electoral Act 2026 for political parties to submit particulars of their candidates ahead of elections. The judge further held that the Commission also lacks the power to alter the 90-day window allowed under Section 31 of the Act for substitution of candidates.
Consequently, the court voided the deadlines of August 29, 2026 and September 16, 2026, fixed by INEC for submission of nomination forms for presidential, National Assembly, governorship and House of Assembly candidates, declaring them inconsistent with the Electoral Act.
The court, though, upheld INEC’s authority to request membership registers from political parties and fix timelines for the conduct of party primaries, holding that such actions were within its statutory responsibilities.
The SDP, through its counsel, Mr Realwan Okpanachi, had asked the court to determine whether INEC possessed the legal authority under Sections 82 and 84(1) of the Electoral Act 2026 to prescribe timelines for the conduct of party primaries and whether it could lawfully shorten the statutory timeframe for submission of candidates’ particulars.
INEC, represented by Dr Alex Izinyon, urged the court to dismiss the suit, arguing that the Commission acted within its constitutional powers and that the matter was statute-barred. But Justice Omotosho rejected the objection, holding that the suit was competent since it arose from a press statement issued by INEC on March 27.
The court held that an election timetable constitutes a chain of electoral activities, including the submission of membership registers and scheduling of party primaries, all of which must conform strictly with the Electoral Act.
The judgment comes barely 24 hours after INEC approached the Court of Appeal in Abuja to challenge an earlier judgment delivered on May 20 in a separate suit filed by the Youth Party, which also nullified aspects of the Commission’s timetable for the 2027 elections.
Reacting, legal practitioner, Monday Ubani, noted that administrative guidelines issued by INEC cannot supersede provisions of the Electoral Act, as controversy deepens over the commission’s 2027 election timetable.
He said the legal dispute between INEC and the Federal High Court extends beyond electoral administration and raises broader constitutional questions about statutory authority and electoral legality. The disagreement between INEC and some political parties centres on electoral guidelines and whether subsidiary regulations issued by the commission can lawfully restrict rights already guaranteed under the Electoral Act.
Ubani said he was not surprised by INEC’s decision to challenge a court ruling which voided the INEC guidelines on the 2027 election, noting that the commission may believe its administrative procedures are necessary for ensuring orderliness and efficiency in the electoral process.
He stressed, however, that administrative regulations must remain subordinate to substantive legislation. “A subsidiary legislation should not be superior to the superior enactment that actually gave birth to it,” Ubani stated.
According to him, while INEC possesses powers to formulate guidelines for elections, such powers must operate within constitutional and statutory limits. He identified Section 29 of the Electoral Act as central to the controversy, explaining that political parties and candidates possess legal rights established by law that cannot be diminished through administrative timelines.
Ubani argued that INEC’s guideline imposing a May 10 deadline for submission of party registers may have effectively reduced rights already granted to political actors under existing legislation.
Similarly, former National Vice Chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) South-West, Eddy Olafeso, and former House of Representatives member from Rivers State, Bernard Mikko, have insisted that the electoral body cannot proceed with aspects of the schedule already nullified by the Federal High Court in Abuja.
Olafeso said the judgment delivered by Justice Umar last week remains binding on all parties until it is set aside by a higher court, stressing that the mere filing of an appeal by INEC does not invalidate the decision.
According to him, Nigerians and political parties are expected to obey the subsisting judgment pending the outcome of any appellate process. He maintained that INEC acted beyond its powers by attempting to impose timelines capable of restricting political parties in the conduct of their primaries and nomination processes.
Olafeso argued that the court was clear in its position that the electoral umpire cannot “gag” political parties through administrative directives that are inconsistent with constitutional provisions and the Electoral Act.
Mikko accused INEC of abandoning its neutral role and behaving like an interested political actor in a fundamentally constitutional matter. He questioned why the commission was vigorously contesting a judgment that merely interpreted the limits of its authority under the law.
According to him, the Electoral Act 2026 already provides sufficient legal guidelines for the conduct of elections without giving INEC powers to interfere in the internal affairs of political parties.
Mikko cited Section 28(1) of the Electoral Act, which mandates INEC to publish notices of election not later than 360 days before the polls, saying the law clearly defines the commission’s responsibilities and boundaries.
He explained that the Constitution, particularly Sections 76(2), 116(2), 132(2) and 178(2), already stipulates the timeframe within which presidential, governorship, National Assembly and State Assembly elections must be conducted.
According to him, while INEC has powers to organise elections and issue guidelines, such powers do not extend to imposing conditions that may deprive political parties and aspirants of legitimate political opportunities.
Mikko said the Federal High Court judgment has reopened national debate on the extent of INEC’s regulatory powers and whether portions of its timetable amount to unconstitutional interference in party administration. “INEC should face its business and leave political parties alone,” he said.
The former lawmaker warned that allowing the commission’s position to stand could unfairly shut out politicians facing internal crises within their parties from seeking alternative platforms before the elections.
He specifically referenced Rivers State governor, Siminalayi Fubara, arguing that politicians in similar situations should retain the freedom to pursue their ambitions on other political platforms if circumstances within their parties become unfavourable.
Mikko maintained that democracy thrives on political freedom and inclusion, not administrative restrictions capable of narrowing the political space ahead of a major national election.
The legal battle over INEC’s timetable is expected to shape political calculations ahead of the 2027 polls, especially as parties intensify consultations on alliances, defections, mergers and nomination strategies.
Meanwhile, YIAGA Africa has called on INEC to urgently release the Regulations and Guidelines for the conduct of elections in line with the recently enacted Electoral Act, 2026, with respect to the governorship elections in Ekiti and Osun states.
The executive director of YIAGA Africa, Samson Itodo, in a tweet titled: “Where are the new INEC Regulations and Guidelines for the conduct of elections?” expressed worry that with just 25 days to the Ekiti governorship election, the crucial document is yet to be released.
Itodo explained that the Regulations and Guidelines will provide the detailed procedures for implementing key provisions of the new law, especially on electronic transmission of results, the protocol where communication failure occurs, results collation procedures, and other operational issues critical to election day administration.
“With the enactment of the 2026 Electoral Act, INEC is expected to issue new Regulations and Guidelines for the conduct of elections. We are just 25 days to #EkitiDecides2026; this crucial document is yet to be released.
“These Regulations and Guidelines will provide the detailed procedures for implementing key provisions of the new law, especially on electronic transmission of results, the protocol where communication failure occurs, results collation procedures, and other operational issues critical to election day administration.
“Timely issuance of these guidelines is essential for building public confidence in the electoral process. Political parties, observers, security agencies, and voters need certainty on the rules that will govern the election,” he said.
