Justice J.K. Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, has delivered a ruling that both empowers and restrains the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), affirming the electoral body’s constitutional authority to issue and alter election timetables while simultaneously drawing a firm line against any attempt to override timelines already enshrined in statute.
The judgment, delivered in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/720/2026, arose from a challenge filed by the Social Democratic Party (SDP), which had dragged INEC before the court to contest the legality of portions of the commission’s timetable and schedule of activities for the 2027 general elections.
At the heart of the dispute was a pointed question: does INEC possess the legal authority to compel political parties to conduct their primaries within timelines of its own choosing?
The court upheld INEC’s authority to prescribe timelines for party primaries and related political activities, with the judge declaring that “Election Timetable is a chain of events or actions which include submission of membership register of political parties to be used for the purpose of primaries and fix timeframes within which political parties are to organize their primary Elections for the purpose of the stated 2027 Election.”
The ruling further settled a simmering legal debate over whether INEC could demand membership registers from political parties as part of its pre-election supervision.
The court ruled that this too fell within the lawful powers of the commission, stating that “the Defendant requesting for membership register of political parties and giving timeframe within which to conduct primaries is not ultra vires the powers of the Defendant.”
However, in what legal analysts will likely view as the most consequential aspect of the ruling, Justice Omotosho drew a sharp distinction between INEC’s administrative powers and the inviolability of the Electoral Act 2026.
The court held that while INEC is free to fix its own timelines for administrative purposes, it cannot compress or override timelines expressly fixed by the Electoral Act.
The practical consequence of this finding was immediate: the court nullified the August 29, 2026, and September 16, 2026, deadlines set by INEC for the submission of nomination forms for presidential, National Assembly, governorship and other elections dates the commission had inserted into its revised timetable but which the court found to be inconsistent with the statutory provisions governing those processes.
Justice Omotosho stressed that while INEC can set such timelines, it cannot shorten statutory deadlines provided under the law, particularly those relating to candidate submissions and substitutions.
The ruling lands in what has become a turbulent legal terrain. Just days earlier, a separate Federal High Court judge had handed down a decision that appeared to take a considerably narrower view of INEC’s powers. Justice M.G. Umar, in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/517/2026 filed by the Youth Party against INEC, held that the commission lacks the statutory authority to prescribe timelines within which political parties must conduct their primaries for the nomination of candidates for the 2027 polls.
Justice Umar further declared that INEC cannot lawfully abridge or limit periods already guaranteed under the Electoral Act 2026, regarding the submission of candidates’ particulars, withdrawal and substitution of candidates, publication of final lists, and campaign windows for political parties.
The apparent contradiction between the two rulings has not gone unnoticed. INEC is currently moving to challenge the earlier judgment that had nullified parts of its election guidelines, setting the stage for what may well become a defining legal battle over the boundaries of electoral administration in Nigeria.
Stakeholders, including political parties, civil society organisations, and election monitors, have expressed relief that the judiciary has engaged with these questions, even as a former presidential candidate and business mogul, Gbenga Hashim, described the earlier ruling against INEC as “a victory for the rule of law and constitutional order.”
As Nigeria counts down to its 2027 general elections, Monday’s ruling by Justice Omotosho provides partial clarity, but the contradictory judicial landscape means the final word on INEC’s timetabling powers may yet lie with an appellate court.
For now, all eyes remain on INEC’s next move, with millions of Nigerians watching closely to see whether the commission that will administer their votes in 2027 operates firmly within the law or tests its boundaries once more.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW
The Federal High Court in Abuja has struck a careful balance in defining INEC’s electoral powers ahead of the 2027 general elections.
While Justice Omotosho confirmed that INEC has full constitutional authority to issue election timetables, set deadlines for party primaries, and demand membership registers from political parties, the court drew a firm line: INEC cannot override or compress timelines already guaranteed by the Electoral Act 2026.
In short, INEC runs the clock but the law sets its limits. With conflicting rulings from two separate judges now creating legal uncertainty, the matter may ultimately require an appellate court to deliver a definitive verdict before Nigeria heads to the polls in 2027.
