Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja has affirmed the powers of the Independent National Electoral Commission to issue and revise election timetables, declaring that the commission acted within its constitutional mandate in setting timelines for the 2027 general elections.
Justice Omotosho made the declaration while delivering judgment in a suit filed by the Social Democratic Party challenging aspects of INEC’s 2027 election timetable and schedule of activities.
The SDP had questioned whether INEC’s powers under Sections 82 and 84(1) of the Electoral Act 2026 extended to fixing timelines within which political parties must conduct their primaries and submit membership registers.
The party sought several reliefs, including an order restraining INEC from enforcing timelines it claimed were inconsistent with the Electoral Act 2026.
It also asked the court to declare that INEC could not lawfully alter the statutory 120-day period provided under Section 29(1) of the Electoral Act for the submission of candidates’ particulars.
In its defence, INEC argued that its constitutional responsibilities extend beyond receiving notices and monitoring primaries, insisting that it possesses the authority to organise, supervise, and regulate electoral activities through the issuance of election timetables.
The commission maintained that the timetable did not interfere with the internal affairs of political parties and was designed to ensure compliance with the Electoral Act.
INEC further argued that the suit was premature and academic, urging the court to dismiss it.
Delivering judgment, Justice Omotosho held that although subsidiary legislation must not conflict with principal legislation, INEC is legally empowered under Section 151 of the Electoral Act 2026 to issue election guidelines and timetables.
“The issuance of a timetable is to give effect to the Electoral Act, especially with respect to its various timelines,” the judge held.
He described the election timetable as a “chain of events” covering critical pre-election processes, including the submission of membership registers, conduct of party primaries, nomination procedures, and eventual voting.
According to the judge, a timetable that excludes such preparatory activities would be incomplete and could create disorder within the electoral system.
Justice Omotosho therefore ruled that INEC has the constitutional and statutory authority to issue and amend election timetables when necessary to give effect to the Constitution and Electoral Act.
However, the court held that INEC exceeded its powers by shortening the statutory period allowed for the withdrawal and substitution of candidates under Section 31 of the Electoral Act 2026.
The judge noted that while the law permits political parties to submit candidate withdrawal notices up to 90 days before an election, INEC’s revised timetable imposed earlier deadlines that effectively reduced the legally allowed timeframe.
He ruled that the commission acted ultra vires by abridging the period provided by law.
Justice Omotosho also held that INEC could not vary the 120-day statutory deadline stipulated under Section 29(1) of the Electoral Act for the submission of candidates by political parties.
The court consequently ordered INEC to amend aspects of the 2027 election timetable to align with Sections 29(1) and 31 of the Electoral Act 2026.
While the suit succeeded in part, the court affirmed that INEC’s request for political parties to submit membership registers and its authority to fix timelines for party primaries remain valid and lawful.
