One day after the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) appealed the verdict of a Federal High Court that nullified its timeline on party register and election guidelines, asking for a stay of execution of that judgment, another Federal High Court in Abuja yesterday reaffirmed the commission’s power to set timelines for political party primaries ahead of the 2027 general elections.
But the court set aside two major deadlines for candidate submissions by the Commission, concluding that they breach statutory provisions of the Electoral Act 2026, The Guardian reported.
Delivering the judgment, Justice James Omotosho, who presided over the suit filed by the Social Democratic Party (SDP) challenging some aspects of INEC’s timetable and schedule of activities for the 2027 elections ordered the INEC to amend some aspects of its timetable and schedule of activities for the 2027 general elections. The judge held that the electoral body must strictly comply with timelines stipulated in the Electoral Act 2026.
The judge found that whilst INEC is constitutionally and statutorily empowered to issue and amend election timetables, such powers were not unlimited and should be in accordance with the requirements of the law.
The court specifically found fault with parts of the timetable which reduced the statutory time frame for political parties to submit and change candidates.
But Justice Omotosho held that INEC cannot lawfully cut short the 120 days allowed for under Section 29(1) of the Electoral Act 2026 for political parties to submit details of their candidates before elections. The judge additionally found that the Commission likewise does not have the ability to change the 90-day timeframe permitted under Section 31 of the Act for substitution of candidates.
Consequently, the court nullified the deadlines of 29th August, 2026 and 16th September, 2026, imposed by INEC for submission of nomination forms for presidential, National Assembly, governorship and House of Assembly candidates, deeming them inconsistent with the Electoral Act.
The court, however, upheld INEC’s power to demand membership files from political parties and to set time limits for the conduct of party primaries, saying such were within its statutory responsibilities.
Through its counsel, Mr Realwan Okpanachi, the SDP had asked the court to determine whether INEC had 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.
Dr Alex Izinyon urged the court to reject the complaint for INEC, insisting that the Commission acted within its constitutional powers and that the subject was statute barred. But Justice Omotosho overruled the objection and said the suit was competent as it was predicated on a press statement issued by INEC on March 27.
The court found that an election timetable includes a sequence of electoral actions, including the submission of membership registrations and the scheduling of party primaries, which has to be strictly in consonance with the Electoral Act.
The ruling comes just 24 hours after the INEC had moved the Court of Appeal in Abuja to contest a previous judgment given on May 20 in a separate petition filed by the Youth Party, which had also annulled some portions of the Commission’s timetable for the 2027 polls.
Legal practitioner, Monday Ubani, has reacted to the controversy over the commission’s 2027 election date, saying that administrative instructions published by INEC cannot override the requirements of the Electoral Act.
He said the legal tussle between INEC and the Federal High Court was not just about electoral management but broader constitutional issues of statutory authority and electoral validity. The bone of contention between INEC and some political parties is electoral guidelines and whether or not the commission can, by subsidiary regulations issued by it, curtail rights already given under the Electoral Act.
Ubani said he was not surprised that INEC was challenging a court ruling that annulled the INEC rules on the 2027 election, adding that the commission may argue that its administrative procedures are required for guaranteeing orderliness and efficiency in the electoral process.
He emphasized, nonetheless, that administrative rules had to be subordinate to substantive law. Ubani said: “A subsidiary legislation should not be greater than the superior enactment that gave birth to it.
He said that while INEC has rights to make guidelines for elections, such powers must be within constitutional and statutory boundaries. He said Section 29 of the Electoral Act was the crux of the matter, stressing that political parties and candidates had legal rights created by law that cannot be watered down by administrative timelines.
Ubani said the directive issued by INEC to submit party registers by May 10, may have effectively limited the powers already afforded to political actors by the existing laws.
Also, 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 maintained that the electoral body cannot go ahead with parts of the schedule already nullified by the Federal High Court in Abuja.
Olafeso said the ruling handed down by Justice Umar last week is binding on all parties until the same is set down by a higher court, adding that the fact that INEC has filed an appeal does not nullify the verdict.
He said Nigerians and political parties are obliged to abide by the subsisting judgment pending the conclusion of any appellate procedure. He said that INEC had overstepped its bounds by trying to impose time limits which had the effect of limiting political parties in their primaries and nomination processes.
Olafeso said the court was unequivocal in its stance that the electoral umpire cannot “gag” political parties through administrative orders that are inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution and the Electoral Act.
Mikko further accused the INEC of forsaking its unbiased duty and acting like an interested political actor in a fundamentally constitutional topic. “Why is the Commission fighting so hard against a judgment that simply interprets the limits of its power under the law?” he said.
He said the 2026 Electoral Act already provides adequate legislative framework for the conduct of elections without granting INEC powers to intervene in the internal affairs of political parties.
Mikko referred to Section 28(1) of the Electoral Act which provides that INEC has to publish notifications of election not later than 360 days before the polls. “The law is clear on the duties and limits of the commission.
He said that the Constitution, notably Sections 76(2), 116(2), 132(2) and 178(2) already provides the time frame for the holding of presidential, governorship, National Assembly and State Assembly elections.
“While INEC has all the powers to organise elections and issue guidelines, it does not have powers to impose conditions that tend to deprive political parties and aspirants of legitimate political opportunities,” he said.
Mikko said the Federal High Court verdict had reignited national debate on the scope of INEC’s regulatory powers and whether parts of its agenda amounted to unlawful intervention in party management. “INEC should do its work and leave political parties alone,” he remarked.
The former legislator warned that if the commission is allowed to keep its current stance, MPs caught in internal difficulties in their parties would be unfairly stopped from looking for other platforms before the elections.
He notably mentioned Rivers State governor, Siminalayi Fubara, saying people in such positions of power ought not be denied the ability to pursue their dreams on other political platforms if circumstances in their parties become adverse.
“Democracy thrives on political freedom and inclusion, not on administrative restrictions that can curtail the political space ahead of a major national election,” said Mikko.
The court struggle over INEC’s timetable is likely to influence political calculations ahead of the 2027 polls, especially as parties expand consultations on alliances, defections, mergers and nomination plans.
Meanwhile, YIAGA Africa has urged INEC to immediately publish the Regulations and Guidelines for the conduct of elections pursuant to the recently passed Electoral Act, 2026, in respect of the governorship elections in Ekiti and Osun states.
In a tweet titled: “Where are the new INEC Regulations and Guidelines for the conduct of elections?” the executive director of YIAGA Africa, Samson Itodo, expressed concern that the vital document had not been released with only 25 days before the Ekiti governorship poll.
The Regulations and Guidelines will provide detailed procedures for implementing key provisions of the new law, particularly on electronic transmission of results, the protocol where communication failure occurs, results collation procedures and other operational issues critical to election day administration, Itodo said.
“With the signing into law of the 2026 Electoral Act, INEC is expected to release new Regulations and Guidelines for the conduct of elections. We are just 25 days to #EkitiDecides2026, this very important document is still to be revealed.
“These Regulations and Guidelines will give the detailed procedure for implementation of 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 that are critical to election day administration.
The swift issuing of these recommendations is crucial to establish public confidence in the electoral process. “There must be certainty for political parties, observers, security agencies and voters on the rules that will govern the election,” he said.
About the Author
