A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, has nullified the revised timetable and schedule of activities issued by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) for all political parties in the country ahead of 2027 general elections. submit, withdraw and replace names and particulars of their candidates for the 2027 general elections, “is inconsistent with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026.”
Based on the timelines released by INEC, all political parties are expected to submit the list of members to INEC not later than May 10, 2026, and all primaries must be concluded by May 31.
It also stated that for INEC to monitor the exercise, it needs 21 days notice and only party members whose names made it to the register submitted to INEC before the primaries are eligible to stand for primaries. This development had compelled political parties to submit their members list, just as it made them to schedule their primaries within the stipulated timeframe. However, with this court judgement, political parties have up till September 2026, to submit updated membership registers among other things. It also means that party members who wish to make membership changes could do so with the window created.
Justice Mohammed Umar, in the judgment, explained that INEC lacked the statutory power to fix or prescribe the timeframe within which political parties must conduct their primaries for the nomination of candidates for the 2027 general elections.
The Certified True Copy (CTC) of the judgment, a copy of which was obtained by Daily Trust on Thursday, showed that the suit, which was marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/517/2016, was filed by the Youth Party, and has INEC as sole defendant.
Our correspondent reports that the plaintiff, had in the originating summons dated and filed March 11, by its counsel, J. O. Olotu, sought six reliefs and the judge granted all the plaintiff ’s reliefs during the proceedings that lasted hours.
The plaintiff had argued that INEC’s decision was aimed at preventing people who lost in primary elections from defecting to another party and vying for the same office they earlier lost in their former party.
What the judge said
The judge declared that INEC cannot lawfully abridge or limit the statutory periods provided under the Electoral Act in relation to submission of personal particulars of candidates, withdrawal and substitution of candidates, among others.
He, therefore, set aside the portions of INEC’s revised timetable and schedule of activities for the 2027 general elections, which imposed timelines inconsistent with the Electoral Act, 2026.
“It is hereby ordered as follows:
“A declaration is hereby made that upon a proper consideration and interpretation of the provisions of Sections 29, 82 and 84(1) of the Electoral Act, 2026, the powers of the defendant to receive notice of party primaries and the personal particulars of candidates, and its duty to attend, observe and monitor such primaries, does not extend to fixing or prescribing the timetable within which political parties may conduct their primary elections for the purpose of nominating candidates for the 2027 general elections.
“A declaration is made that having regards to Section 29(1) of the Electoral Act, 2026, which requires political parties to submit the personal particulars of their candidates not later than 120 days to an election, the defendant cannot lawfully abridge or limit that statutory period by prescribing a shorter time frame in its 2027 election timetable.
“A declaration is made that having regards to Section 31 of the Electoral Act, 2026 which permits political parties to withdraw and substitute candidates not later than 90 days to the conduct of an election, the defendant cannot lawfully abridge or limit that statutory period by fixing earlier deadline for the withdrawal and replacement of candidates in its 2027 election timetable.
“A declaration is made that in regards to Section 32 of the Electoral Act, 2026, the defendant does not possess the statutory power to publish the final list of candidates for the 2027 general election before the 60 days minimum period prescribed by law.
“A declaration is made that upon a proper construction of Section 98 of the Electoral Act, 2026, the defendant does not possess the statutory power or authority to fix in its timetable for the 2027 general elections for campaign to end two days before the elections.
“A declaration is made that upon proper interpretation to Section 33 of the Electoral Act, 2026, the time frame prescribed by the defendant for submission of membership registers for the conduct of primary elections is NOT applicable to primary elections conducted for the purpose of replacing withdrawn candidates.
“Order is hereby granted setting aside or nullifying the time-frames imposed by the defendant in its Revised Timetable and Schedule of Activities for 2027 General Election for the conduct of primary elections by political parties for the 2027 general elections,” the court held.
The court also ruled that the submission of personal particulars of candidates by their political parties for the 2027 general elections and campaigning for the 2027 general elections are inconsistent with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026.
INEC reacts to judgement
Reacting, Deputy Director, Voter Education and Publicity of Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) Wilfred Olisama, said the commission was yet to study the judgement in detail but maintained that timelines issued by INEC were meant to provide operational flexibility for the electoral body and political parties.
Olisama, who spoke with Daily Trust last night, said the matter being discussed was more about the interpretation of the law than an issue directly concerning the commission.
“I think what the people challenged was that a candidate who probably was not successful in the primaries in his own party can switch to another party and contest, especially when parties have submitted names of their members,” he said.
He added that he first came across the report on social media and had yet to fully review the court’s position.
According to him, “It is not an issue of INEC in the first place. I think they should be challenging the law, certainly not INEC.”
On whether the commission’s timelines contradicted the Electoral Act, Olisama said the commission was empowered to create operational timelines within the limits of the law.
“There is always this window or buffer so that even when parties are doing things, they can have some level of cushion to do adjustments before deadlines,” he said.
He explained that statutory deadlines in the Electoral Act represented the latest possible dates, but did not stop the commission from setting earlier timelines to enable smooth electoral preparations.
“It doesn’t mean because the law says this, that is exactly when parties should do what they want to do. That is where the commission comes in with rules on how those timeframes should be used,” he said.
Drawing an analogy with voter registration, the INEC official noted that although the law provides deadlines for publication of the voter register, the commission usually closes registration earlier to allow time for integration and processing before the statutory deadline.
“So I think the commission will look at the operational ability of it for them to streamline,” he added.
Olisama, however, maintained that he would be in a better position to comment after reviewing the judgement and the issues raised therein.
@Daily Trust
