LAGOS/Nigeria: A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has affirmed the powers of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to issue and alter election timetables, but ordered the electoral body to amend aspects of its 2027 election schedule found to be inconsistent with the Electoral Act, 2026.
Justice James Omotosho delivered the judgment on Tuesday in a suit filed by the Social Democratic Party (SDP) against INEC, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/720/2026, challenging the commission’s authority to prescribe timelines for political parties’ activities ahead of the 2027 general elections.
The court held that the 2027 election timetable issued by INEC, including timelines for party primaries and submission of membership registers by political parties, was valid and legally issued.
Justice Omotosho ruled that INEC possesses statutory powers under Section 151 of the Electoral Act, 2026, to issue subsidiary regulations such as election timetables aimed at ensuring order and coordination in the electoral process.
“The issuance of a timetable is to give effect to the Electoral Act especially with all its various timelines,” the judge held.
He described the election timetable as a chain of activities beginning with the submission of party membership registers and primary election schedules through to the final voting process, noting that such timelines are critical for orderly elections.
“Election timetable is not only the date for voting, but preparatory steps, which are conditional to valid election and nominations must be included in the election timetable,” Justice Omotosho stated.
The judge further held that without the election timetable, the electoral process would descend into chaos.
While affirming INEC’s powers, the court faulted portions of the revised timetable concerning the timeframe for withdrawal and substitution of candidates.
Justice Omotosho held that INEC acted beyond its powers by reducing the statutory period allowed political parties under Section 31 of the Electoral Act, 2026, for candidate withdrawal and substitution.
The court observed that while the Electoral Act permits political parties to submit notices of withdrawal up to 90 days before an election, INEC’s revised timetable imposed earlier deadlines of August 22 and September 19, 2026, for presidential, National Assembly, governorship and House of Assembly elections.
According to the court, the altered dates effectively shortened the period guaranteed by law.
“The defendant therefore acted ultra vires its powers by reducing the time allowed by political parties to convey withdrawals and sworn affidavit to the defendant contrary to the 90 days stipulated by the Electoral Act, 2026,” the judge ruled.
Justice Omotosho consequently ordered INEC to amend the 2027 Election Timetable and Schedule of Activities to comply with Sections 29(1) and 31 of the Electoral Act, 2026.
The court also declared void the deadlines of August 29 and September 16, 2026, fixed by INEC for submission of nomination forms for presidential, National Assembly, governorship and House of Assembly candidates, to the extent that they conflict with Section 29(1) of the Electoral Act.
Justice Omotosho nevertheless dismissed INEC’s argument that the suit was statute-barred and held that the action, filed on April 9, arose from the commission’s March 27 press statement.
The SDP had approached the court seeking interpretation of Sections 82 and 84(1) of the Electoral Act, questioning whether INEC’s powers to monitor party primaries extended to fixing timelines for their conduct.
In its final decision, the court ruled that INEC retains constitutional authority to issue and modify election timetables, provided such actions remain within the limits prescribed by law.
