The Federal High Court in Abuja has nullified key provisions of the Independent National Electoral Commission’s (INEC) Revised Timetable and Schedule of Activities for the polls.
The judgment, delivered by Justice Mohammed Umar, voided the timelines imposed by INEC on political parties for the conduct of primaries, submission of candidates’ particulars, withdrawal and replacement of candidates, publication of the final list of candidates, and campaign activities, declaring them inconsistent with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026.
The ruling is being widely interpreted as a major lifeline for politicians who lost in the ongoing party primaries, as it opens a fresh legal pathway for aggrieved aspirants to defect to other political parties and continue their political ambitions.
A Certified True Copy (CTC) of the judgment showed that the suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/517/2016, was instituted by the Youth Party against INEC.
The plaintiff, through its counsel, J.O. Olotu, had urged the court to determine whether INEC possessed the statutory authority to prescribe restrictive timelines outside the provisions already contained in the Electoral Act 2026.
The party argued that under Sections 29, 82, and 84(1) of the Electoral Act, INEC’s responsibilities are limited to receiving notices of party primaries, monitoring the exercises, and receiving particulars of nominated candidates, but do not extend to imposing restrictive timelines on political parties.
Delivering judgment after hearing arguments from both parties, Justice Umar held that Section 29(1) of the Electoral Act clearly stipulates that political parties are only required to submit the particulars of their candidates not later than 120 days before an election.
According to the court, INEC cannot lawfully abridge or reduce that statutory period by prescribing shorter deadlines in its election timetable.
The court also cited Section 31 of the Electoral Act, which permits political parties to withdraw and substitute candidates not later than 90 days before an election, ruling that INEC lacked the authority to impose earlier deadlines for candidate replacement.
Justice Umar further held that by virtue of Section 32 of the Electoral Act, INEC does not possess the power to publish the final list of candidates earlier than the 60-day minimum period prescribed by law.
The court additionally ruled that INEC lacked the statutory authority under Section 98 of the Electoral Act to fix campaign termination for two days before elections.
“A Declaration is made that upon the proper construction of Section 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 the campaign to end 2 days before the elections,” the court held.
Justice Umar subsequently set aside all timelines in INEC’s revised timetable that were inconsistent with the Electoral Act, including timelines relating to primaries, submission of candidates’ particulars, withdrawal and replacement of candidates, publication of the final candidates’ list, and campaign activities.
The court also ruled that the timeframe prescribed by INEC for submission of membership registers for party primaries does not apply to primaries conducted for the replacement of withdrawn candidates.
Under the now-nullified timetable, all 18 registered political parties were required to submit their membership registers to INEC by May 10 and conclude primaries, withdrawals, and replacement of candidates before the end of May.
Although most political parties have already complied with the directive and commenced primaries, the exercises (especially within the ruling All Progressives Congress), have triggered protests in several states over allegations of imposition of candidates, manipulation of delegates’ lists, and forced withdrawals from contests.
Political observers say the judgment could significantly alter the dynamics of the 2027 elections by triggering fresh negotiations, defections, and coalition talks among dissatisfied aspirants across party lines.
INEC, led by Chairman Joash Amupitan, had yet to officially respond to the judgment as of the time of filing this report.
