Another Court Upholds INEC Powers to Fix Election Timetable
Another Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has upheld the legality of the election timetable issued by the Independent National Electoral Commission, affirming that the commission acted within its...
Another Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has upheld the legality of the election timetable issued by the Independent National Electoral Commission, affirming that the commission acted within its constitutional and statutory powers in setting timelines for political parties and the 2027 general elections.
Delivering the judgement on Tuesday on the case with Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/720/2026, Justice J.K. Omotosho, the presiding Judge, held that INEC has the constitutional and statutory authority to fix timelines for political party primaries and other electoral activities connected with the 2027 general elections.
The lawsuit was instituted by the Social Democratic Party on April 9th 2026, to challenge the legality of some parts of INEC’s revised timetable for the 2027 elections and questioned whether or not the electoral commission had powers under Sections 82 and 84(1) of the Electoral Act 2026 to prescribe timelines for party primaries and whether it could lawfully shorten the statutory period of 120 days required for submission of candidates’ particulars before elections.
According to the Certified True Copy of the judgement delivered, Justice Omotosho affirmed the position of the electoral body as the legitimate institution empowered by the law to issue a timetable for election, but it must do so in compliance with the time frames in the Electoral Act 2026.
In his declaration, Justice Omotosho said that an election timetable is a chain of events or actions which includes the submission of a membership register of political parties to be used for primaries and fixes timeframes within which political parties are to organise their primary Elections for the stated 2027 Election.
The court further declared “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 a timetable for elections and to even alter the 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 the 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 the timeframe within which political parties are to hold their primaries and stating the timeframe for the submission of membership registers of political parties.
However, the Judge also maintained the status quo of the law, stating that the INEC “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.
As a result, the court also ruled that INEC must “amend the Election Timetable2027 and schedule of activities in compliance with sections 29 (1) & 31 of the Electoral Act 2026.”
This judgement is coming barely a week after Justice M.G. Umar held that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has no constitutional or statutory authority to set the timetable for party primaries ahead of the 2027 general elections, stating that under Sections 29, 82 and 84(1) of the Electoral Act, 2026, INEC’s role is limited to receiving notices of party primaries, monitoring them, and collecting candidates’ personal particulars.
Not satisfied with Justice M.G.’s ruling, the electoral commission has approached the Court of Appeal, through its lawyer, Alex Izinyon (SAN), to suspend the ruling of the lower court on the ground that the Federal High Court failed to address its objection that the suit was merely hypothetical and academic. According to the commission, that omission denied it a fair hearing.
A professor of law, Misbau Alamu Lateef, PhD, shared some perspectives on the two judgements. His views:
Background:
- A) Youth Party v. Independent National Electoral Commission – Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/517/2026, Judgment of Hon. Justice M.G. Umar, 20 May 2026
- B) Social Democratic Party v. Independent National Electoral Commission – Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/720/2026, Judgment of Hon. Justice J.K. Omotosho, 26 May 2026
Within the span of six days this May 2026, two judges of the Federal High Court (FHC) sitting in the Abuja Judicial Division delivered judgements against the same defendant – the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) – arising from substantially the same subject matter, namely, the legality of INEC’s Revised Timetable and Schedule of Activities for the 2027 General Elections. Both cases were commenced by way of originating summons and raised virtually identical questions of law. Yet the two judges arrived at outcomes that are, on the most fundamental question, irreconcilable. This brief note sets out the areas of convergence and divergence in the ratio decidendi of both decisions.
Areas of Agreement by the Courts
Both courts agreed that Section 29(1) of the Electoral Act 2026 gives political parties a mandatory 120-day period to submit the personal particulars of their nominated candidates to INEC, and that INEC cannot shorten or alter that period through its timetable. Umar J stated clearly that, under section 29(1), INEC has no lawful authority to prescribe a shorter deadline in its 2027 election timetable. Omotosho J reached the same conclusion, nullifying the nomination submission deadlines of 29 August 2026 and 16 September 2026 to the extent that they conflicted with section 29(1), and directing INEC to amend the timetable accordingly.
Both courts also agreed that section 31 of the Electoral Act 2026, which allows political parties and candidates to withdraw and substitute candidates up to 90 days before an election, sets a minimum statutory period that INEC cannot shorten. Umar J held that INEC cannot lawfully curtail that period by fixing an earlier deadline for withdrawal and substitution in its 2027 election timetable. Omotosho J reached the same conclusion, holding that the deadlines of 22 August 2026 and 19 September 2026 were inconsistent with the 90-day minimum and therefore ultra vires.
Where the Judgements Differ
The central issue is whether INEC has the power to set a timeframe for party primaries. This is the most significant and irreconcilable conflict between the two decisions because it goes to the core of INEC’s constitutional and statutory role in the pre-election process.
Justice Umar J held that, on a proper interpretation of sections 29, 82 and 84(1) of the Electoral Act 2026, INEC’s power to receive notice of party primaries and its duty to attend, observe and monitor them do not extend to fixing the timetable within which political parties must conduct those primaries for the nomination of candidates for the 2027 general elections. On that basis, he set aside the timeframes for party primaries contained in INEC’s Revised Timetable.
Justice Omotosho J took the opposite view. He held that INEC, as Nigeria’s electoral umpire, is empowered by the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and the Electoral Act 2026 to issue comprehensive election timetables, including a timeframe for party primaries. He based this conclusion on Paragraph 15, Item F of the Third Schedule to the Constitution, which authorises INEC to organise, supervise and monitor elections and the activities of political parties, including their primaries, and to make rules and regulations for political parties.
Furthermore, he held that section 151 of the Electoral Act 2026 empowers INEC to issue regulations, guidelines or manuals for the purpose of giving effect to the Act. He characterised the election timetable as subsidiary legislation, carrying the force of law subject to the constraints of the parent statute. He also invoked section 285(14)(c) of the Constitution, which expressly includes “timetable for an election” among the matters a political party may challenge as a pre-election matter, holding that this demonstrates that the Constitution itself recognises and contemplates INEC’s power to make comprehensive election timetables. He accordingly declared the 2027 general election timetable valid and legally issued in principle, though voiding the specific provisions inconsistent with sections 29(1) and 31.
On Membership Register Submission and Replacement, Primaries
Justice Umar J addressed a specific issue that Omotosho J did not consider. He held that, on a proper interpretation of section 33 of the Electoral Act 2026, INEC’s timeframe for submitting membership registers for primary elections does not apply to primaries held to replace withdrawn candidates. This qualification narrows the scope of the membership register requirement in substitution primaries.
Justice Omotosho J did not make that distinction. He broadly upheld INEC’s 21-day deadline for submitting membership registers as consistent with section 77(4) of the Electoral Act 2026. He also held that INEC’s extension of the deadline to 10 May 2026, announced in its 27 March 2026 press release, was lawful because it still fell within 21 days of the close of the primaries window on 30 May 2026.
On the Campaign Period – Section 98
Justice Umar J went beyond the issues considered in the SDP case. He held that, on a proper interpretation of section 98 of the Electoral Act 2026, INEC lacks the statutory authority to fix a campaign end date two days before the 2027 general elections. That issue was not raised before Omotosho J. and was therefore not considered in the SDP judgment.
On the Scope and Nature of Relief Granted
The two decisions differ markedly in their overall judicial approach to the relief granted. Umar J issued a broad and sweeping order setting aside the timeframes imposed by INEC in the Revised Timetable across multiple activities – conduct of primaries, submission of personal particulars, withdrawal and replacement of candidates, publication of the final list, and campaigning – to the extent that they were inconsistent with the Electoral Act 2026. The relief was omnibus in character and invalidating.
Justice Omotosho J adopted a more measured and surgical approach. He upheld the timetable as valid and legally issued in principle, affirming INEC’s power to set a primaries window and regulate pre-election activities. He then identified and voided only the specific provisions that fell below the statutory floors in sections 29(1) and 31 and made a targeted order directing INEC to amend the timetable to bring those provisions into compliance. The relief was curative rather than wholesale.
Conclusion
The two decisions agree on one narrow but important point: the timelines in sections 29(1) and 31 of the Electoral Act 2026 are mandatory minimum periods that INEC cannot reduce through its timetable. Beyond that, however, they diverge sharply, especially on the central constitutional question of whether INEC has the power to fix a window for party primaries at all.
This conflict is judicially significant. Both decisions were delivered by judges of the same court and division, exercising concurrent jurisdiction, within six days of each other, and on the same subject matter against the same defendant. The conflict on the foundational issue cannot be resolved at first instance and requires authoritative determination by the Court of Appeal. It is, therefore, welcome that INEC has already appealed the Umar decision.
Until the appeal is decided, the conflicting judgments will continue to create significant legal uncertainty for INEC, registered political parties, and the broader framework of pre-election activities for the 2027 general elections. Given the time-sensitive electoral calendar, the appeal is expected to be heard promptly.
No Comment! Be the first one.