INEC Timetable: YIAGA Africa Backs Court Ruling, Urges Stakeholder Meeting
Yiaga Africa described the Federal High Court in Abuja’s judgement, which nullified key provisions in the Independent National Electoral Commission’s (INEC) revised 2027 election...
Yiaga Africa described the Federal High Court in Abuja’s judgement, which nullified key provisions in the Independent National Electoral Commission’s (INEC) revised 2027 election timetable, as legally sound.
In a statement, Executive Director Samson Itodo stated the verdict reaffirms the supremacy of the Electoral Act 2026 over administrative directives.
On Wednesday, the Federal High Court, led by Justice M.G. Umar, struck down INEC’s guidelines on party primaries, candidate withdrawal and substitution, the submission of party membership registers, and campaign deadlines.
The judgement restores the statutory rights of political parties and strips INEC of the authority to abridge the election timeframes stipulated by the legislature.
Yiaga Africa therefore backed the ruling, saying it curbs arbitrary rulemaking and gives parties more time for internal organisation and submitting membership registers.
However, Yiaga Africa noted that the judgement appears to conflict with an earlier Supreme Court ruling that affirmed INEC’s power to set election dates and publish its timetable of activities.
It has recommended a stakeholder meeting to INEC to determine its next line of action, especially because of the time constraint.
YIAGA’s Full Statement
“Yiaga Africa has noted the Federal High Court judgement delivered on 20 May 2026 by Hon. Justice M.G. Umar in Youth Party v INEC (FHC/ABJ/CS/517/2026). The judgement sets aside portions of INEC’s Revised Timetable and Schedule of Activities for the 2027 General Election because the timeframes prescribed by the Commission are inconsistent with Sections 29, 31, 32, 33, and 98 of the Electoral Act 2026.
“Political parties have every right to assert their interests through the courts, especially where there is a clear perception of injustice. Judicial scrutiny of administrative action is a legitimate feature of constitutional democracy, not a threat to it.
“We have consistently raised concerns about the compressed timelines resulting from last-minute amendments to the Electoral Act introduced by the National Assembly. These changes shrank political space, disadvantaged certain political actors, and imposed logistical pressures on INEC. The late passage of the Electoral Act 2026, combined with the adjustment of election dates to accommodate religious observances, created a difficult operational environment that required careful judgement and broad stakeholder engagement.
“That said, the Federal High Court judgement is legally sound, though narrow in scope. It reaffirms a fundamental constitutional principle: all institutions, including INEC, must act within the law, and subsidiary instruments cannot override or shorten timelines set by statutory enactments.
“However, the legal issues raised are not entirely straightforward. The Supreme Court has previously affirmed INEC’s constitutional discretion in election administration. In NDP v INEC (2013) 20 WRN 1 at 45, the Supreme Court, per Ariwoola JSC, held that: “It is not in doubt that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has the sole responsibility to decide when elections are to hold… The respondent also reserves the prerogative to decide what Timetable of Activities to publish for a General Election.” This position aligns with earlier decisions, including PDP v Sylva (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1316) 85 (SC) and Faleke v INEC (2016) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1543) 61 (SC).
“The Electoral Act 2026 requires political parties to submit their list of candidates no later than 120 days before the election; it does not expressly forbid earlier submission. On a plain reading, this sets a deadline rather than a prohibition.
“This suggests INEC may retain some administrative discretion in sequencing electoral activities, especially given the multiple legal and procedural steps before candidate nomination.
“Even so, the core issue is not only legal interpretation but also sound institutional judgement. INEC may not have erred in law by fixing its timetable, but discretion should expand democratic participation rather than restrict it. Given the late passage of the Electoral Act 2026, compressed statutory timelines imposed by the National Assembly, and the initial review of election dates due to religious observances, there was a strong case for greater flexibility to allow political parties enough time to organise credible primaries.
“INEC must now engage transparently with stakeholders on its next steps, whether that means filing an appeal, complying with the judgement, or a further review of the timetable. Clear communication with political parties and citizens will be critical to sustaining confidence in the process. Whatever course the Commission chooses must be guided by protecting the integrity, inclusiveness, and credibility of the 2027 elections, not administrative convenience.”
No Comment! Be the first one.