…Judge knocks INEC over arbitrary powers, unlawful restriction of electoral processes
By Jeremy Fregene
The Federal High Court in Abuja has delivered a landmark judgment that could significantly reshape the political calculations ahead of the 2027 general elections, striking down key aspects of the Independent National Electoral Commission’s (INEC) controversial election timetable and declaring that the electoral umpire exceeded its statutory powers.
In a ruling yesterday, Justice Mohammed Umar nullified several deadlines imposed by INEC in its Revised Timetable and Schedule of Activities for the 2027 General Election, holding that the commission cannot override provisions expressly guaranteed under the Electoral Act, 2026.
The judgment is widely seen as a major victory for political parties, aggrieved aspirants, and internal democracy advocates who had accused INEC of rushing the electoral process and creating conditions capable of triggering confusion, imposition of candidates, and widespread litigation.
At the heart of the dispute was INEC’s directive compelling all 18 registered political parties to conclude primaries and submit membership registers by May 2026 as a condition for participation in the 2027 polls.
But the court ruled that the commission acted beyond its legal authority.
Justice Umar specifically nullified INEC’s deadlines relating to the conduct of party primaries, submission of membership registers, submission of candidates’ personal particulars, withdrawal and replacement of candidates, publication of final candidate lists and campaign timelines.
The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/517/2016, was filed by the Youth Party against INEC.
According to the Certified True Copy of the judgment, the plaintiff argued that INEC’s powers under Sections 29, 82 and 84(1) of the Electoral Act, 2026, do not include fixing restrictive timelines for how and when political parties should conduct their primaries beyond what the law already provides.
In his judgment, Justice Umar agreed substantially with the plaintiff’s position.
The court held that under Section 29(1) of the Electoral Act, political parties are legally entitled to submit particulars of candidates not later than 120 days before an election, stressing that INEC cannot lawfully shorten that statutory period through administrative guidelines.
The judge further ruled that Section 31 of the Electoral Act clearly permits parties to withdraw or substitute candidates up to 90 days before an election, adding that INEC lacks the authority to impose earlier deadlines.
Justice Umar also held that the commission cannot publish final candidate lists earlier than the 60-day minimum period prescribed by law under Section 32 of the Electoral Act.
In another significant pronouncement, the court ruled that INEC has no statutory power under Section 98 of the Electoral Act to compel political campaigns to end exactly two days before elections merely by inserting such restrictions into its timetable.
The court also invalidated INEC’s requirement compelling parties to submit membership registers by May 10, especially in cases involving replacement primaries arising from candidate withdrawals.
Consequently, the court set aside all portions of INEC’s timetable deemed inconsistent with the Electoral Act, 2026.
The judgement is expected to have far-reaching political implications, particularly within the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), where recent primaries in several states have generated protests, allegations of candidate imposition, parallel congresses, and mass withdrawals by aggrieved aspirants.
Many politicians who lost out in the rushed primaries are now believed to be studying the judgement closely as a possible legal and political lifeline.
Analysts say the ruling effectively reopens the political space for negotiations, reconciliation, and possible fresh alignments within parties that had complained bitterly about compressed timelines.
The decision may also force INEC into a major logistical recalibration ahead of 2027.
Observers note that the electoral commission had accelerated preparations partly because of delays associated with the passage and implementation of the Electoral Act, 2026.
Political watchers say that with the court now widening the legal windows available to political parties, INEC may have little choice but to review and realign its timetable to conform strictly with the law unless it chooses to challenge the judgement at the Court of Appeal.
For many Nigerians, however, the ruling goes beyond mere election scheduling.
Legal experts say the judgement has reinforced a critical constitutional principle, in the sense that regulatory agencies cannot use administrative directives to override rights and timelines expressly created by legislation passed by the National Assembly.