…Orders electoral body to amend 2027 schedule in line with the law
Another Federal High Court sitting in Abuja on Tuesday, May 26, 2026, ruled that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) cannot abridge statutory timelines expressly provided in the Electoral Act 2026.
It however, held that the Electoral Commission has powers to issue and alter election timetables for the conduct of elections in the country.
The Court presided over by Justice James Omotosho while delivering judgement in a suit instituted by the Social Democratic Party (SDP), therefore ordered INEC to amend aspects of its 2027 Election Timetable and Schedule of Activities to comply strictly with relevant provisions of the law.
The SDP had approached the court and challenged the powers of the electoral commission to prescribe timelines for party primaries and submission of membership registers ahead of the 2027 general elections that failed to comply with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2026.
The SDP argued that INEC clearly exceeded its powers by fixing deadlines that were inconsistent with Sections 29(1), 31, 82 and 84(1) of the Electoral Act 2026.
The plaintiff among other reliefs, therefore sought an order restraining the Electoral Commission from enforcing timelines that conflict with the provisions of the Electoral Act.
INEC in its defence, argued that its constitutional responsibilities extend beyond merely monitoring party primaries, and emphasised that it possesses the powers to organise, supervise and regulate electoral activities through issuance of election timetables.
It also argued that the timetable was designed to ensure orderliness and compliance with the Electoral Act.
INEC told the court that the suit filed by the SDP was premature and speculative.
In his judgement, Justice Omotosho held that INEC acted outside its powers by shortening timelines already fixed by statute and therefore voided the deadlines of August 29, 2026 and September 16, 2026 earlier fixed by INEC for submission of nomination forms for presidential, National Assembly, governorship and House of Assembly elections to the extent of their inconsistency with Section 29(1) of the Electoral Act.
Accordingly, the Court ordered the Electoral Commission to amend the affected portions of the timetable in compliance with Sections 29(1) and 31 of the Electoral Act 2026.
Justice Omotosho however upheld the powers of INEC to request membership registers from political parties and fix timelines for the conduct of party primaries.
The Court noted that while election timetables are valid subsidiary legislations issued pursuant to Section 151 of the Electoral Act 2026, such must comply with the law.
Justice Omotosho also held that election timetables are not limited to voting dates alone, but also cover preparatory activities such as submission of membership registers, conduct of party primaries, nomination of candidates and other electoral processes leading to the main election, adding that without such timelines, the nation’s electoral system would descend into confusion and disorder.
The court also ruled that INEC possesses the legal authority to issue and even alter election timetables where necessary to give effect to the Constitution and provisions of the Electoral Act.
While referencing Section 285(14) of the 1999 Constitution as amended, Justice Omotosho faulted portions of the revised timetable issued by INEC, particularly deadlines relating to withdrawal and substitution of candidates.
The court specifically held that Section 31 of the Electoral Act clearly provides that political parties can submit notices of withdrawal and sworn affidavits of candidates not later than 90 days before an election.
Justice Omotosho stated that some of the dates fixed by INEC effectively reduced the statutory period guaranteed by law, thereby rendered such provisions inconsistent with the Electoral Act.
