The Federal High Court in Abuja has nullified key aspects of the timetable issued by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) for key pre-election activities, including the conduct of primary elections of political parties, ahead of the 2027 general elections, holding that the electoral body acted outside its statutory powers under the Electoral Act 2026.
The judgement, delivered by judge, M. G. Umar, Wednesday, gutted key parts of INEC’s Revised Timetable and Schedule of Activities for 2027 General Election.
|
|
In the decision, which is likely to send INEC back to the drawing board in the preparation for the general elections early next year, the judge set aside not just the timeframe for primary elections but also post-primary election activities of political parties.
Affected by the judgement are the schedules for the conduct of primary elections of political parties as well as timeframes for the nomination, withdrawal and replacement personal particulars of candidates by their political parties and the publication of the final list of candidates for the 2027 general elections by INEC.
|
|
|
|---|
The judgement was delivered on Wednesday in a suit filed by the Youth Party, challenging several provisions of INEC’s revised election schedule.
The judgement came at the time when many political parties, acting based on INEC’s timetable and schedule of activities issued on 26 February, are at the verge of completing their primary elections for elective positions in the lead-up to the 2027 general elections. A party like the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) has just the presidential primary election left to be conducted.
The pre-election activities, as scheduled by INEC, were designed to culminate in the presidential and National Assembly elections on 16 January 2027 and the governorship and state Houses of Assembly elections on 6 February.
It is not yet clear how INEC would react to the judgement.
According to the certified true copy of the judgement shared with PREMIUM TIMES on Thursday, the court stated that while INEC has a supervisory role over elections, it cannot prescribe binding timelines that regulate how and when political parties conduct their internal primaries.
How it started
The dispute partly centres on INEC’s “Regulations for the Conduct of Political Party Primaries”, a framework designed to guide how political parties nominate candidates for elections.
INEC introduced the regulations to strengthen internal party democracy and ensure transparency in candidate selection.
In the document, the commission said the framework was meant to highlight the key principles and documentation required for the successful conduct of party primaries.
It explained that the regulations were not only anchored on legal requirements but also intended to promote democratic practices within political parties.
INEC added that consistent compliance by parties would improve transparency in the electoral process and deepen Nigeria’s democratic environment.
First issued in 2014 under then INEC Chairman Attahiru Jega, the framework drew authority from the Nigerian Constitution and the Electoral Act 2010.
It required political parties to give all eligible members equal opportunity to participate in primaries and barred exclusionary conditions based on sex, religion, ethnicity or wealth.
The regulations also required parties to notify INEC at least 21 days before primaries, stating whether they would adopt direct or indirect primaries and providing full details of venues, delegates, aspirants and party guidelines.
It further empowered INEC to monitor primaries and determine compliance with electoral laws and party rules.
Prayers
The Youth Party approached the court through an originating summons filed on 11 March, arguing that INEC went beyond its statutory mandate under the Electoral Act 2026 by imposing timelines that are not supported by law.
The party asked the court to determine whether INEC could lawfully fix deadlines for party primaries, candidate submissions, withdrawals and substitutions, publication of final candidate lists, and campaign periods.
At the hearing, lawyer to the Youth Party, J. O. Olotu, urged the court to set aside the disputed portions of the timetable, insisting that the commission had effectively rewritten statutory provisions through administrative guidelines.
INEC, represented by Sarafa Yusuf, defended its timetable, maintaining that its regulations were necessary for effective election planning and coordination.
The court had earlier heard arguments from both parties and reserved judgement after the final addresses.
Judgement
Mr Umar agreed with the Youth Party and ruled that INEC’s powers do not extend to prescribing timelines for the internal nomination processes of political parties.
He ruled that Sections 29, 82 and 84(1) of the Electoral Act 2026 only empower INEC to receive notices of primaries, monitor the process and collect candidates’ particulars, but not to determine when political parties must hold their primaries.
The judge held that INEC cannot shorten statutory timelines clearly set out in the Electoral Act.
He explained that Section 29(1) allows political parties to submit candidates’ particulars not later than 120 days before an election, and that no administrative timetable can lawfully reduce that period.
Mr Umar also held that Section 31 of the Act gives political parties up to 90 days before an election to withdraw and substitute candidates, and INEC cannot impose an earlier cut-off.
On the publication of candidates’ list, the court ruled that Section 32 does not allow INEC to publish the final list earlier than the 60-day minimum prescribed by law.
He added that doing so would amount to an unlawful amendment of the statute.
The court further held that INEC acted outside its powers when it fixed campaign activities to end two days before the election, describing the provision as inconsistent with Section 98 of the Electoral Act.
On party registers used for primaries, the judge ruled that INEC’s prescribed timelines do not apply where parties conduct primaries for the replacement of withdrawn candidates.
Orders
Mr Umar consequently set aside several provisions of INEC’s revised timetable for the 2027 general elections.
He nullified the timelines relating to party primaries, submission of candidates’ particulars, withdrawal and substitution of candidates, publication of final candidate lists and campaign deadlines, holding that they conflict with the Electoral Act 2026.
The court stressed that those provisions could not stand because they attempted to alter statutory timelines fixed by the legislature.
It issued among others:
“A Declaration is made that having 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 Jaw.
“A Declaration is made that upon a proper construction of Settion 98 of the Electoral Act, 2026, the Defendant does not possess the statutory authority to fix in its timetable for the 2027 general elections for campaign to end 2 days before the elections.
READ ALSO: INEC fixes date for Rivers South-east senatorial by-election
“A Declaration is made that upon a 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 submission of personal particulars of candidates by their political parties for the 2027 general elections, the withdrawal and replacement of candidates by political parties for the 2027 general elections, the publication of the final list of candidates for the 2027 general elections and campaigning for the 2027 general elections which are inconsistent with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026.”
Download the Certitied True Copy of the judgement orders here.
