INEC timetable must align with Electoral Act – Court rules

A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has ruled that the timetable issued by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) must comply strictly with the timeframes in the Electoral Act, 2026.

It also affirmed the powers of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to issue timetables for elections and alter it as it deems fit but must be in agreement with the Electoral Act.

This is coming days after another Federal High Court in Abuja, nullified the INEC guidelines for the 2027 general elections. In his ruling last Thursday, Justice Mohammed Umar said the guidelines by INEC must be in tandem with the provisions of the Electoral Act and that what it is currently working with violates the law. The suit was filed by Youth Party.

And in the Monday judgement, Justice James Omotosho made the declaration while delivering ruling in a suit filed by the Social Democratic Party (SDP) against INEC in the case marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/720/2026.

It was reported that the SDP had, in the originating summons filed on April 9, posed five questions for determination.

One of the questions was “whether having regard to Sections 82 and 84(1) of the Electoral Act, 2026, the defendant’s powers to receive notices, attend, observe and monitor party primaries extend to fixing or prescribing the timetable within which political parties must conduct their primaries.”

The plaintiff, therefore, sought seven reliefs, including an order of perpetual injunction restraining the electoral umpire from enforcing any timelines inconsistent with the Electoral Act, 2026.

It also prayed the court to declare that “the defendant cannot lawfully abridge or vary the 120 days statutory period in section 29(1) of the Electoral Act, 2026 by its timetable or press release dated 27th March, 2026.”

But INEC, in its defence, stated that its powers are not limited to receiving notices and attending primary elections, but to organise and supervise elections and issue timetables to ensure compliance with the Electoral Act.

It stated that the timetable so issued would not interfere with the internal affairs of the plaintiff (SDP) and that the primaries of the SDP had yet to start.

It further argued that its timetable released did not conflict with the provisions of the constitution and the Electoral Act and similarly did not bridge the timeline of the party.

INEC, which argued that the suit was premature and academic, urged the court to dismiss it.

But delivering his judgement, Justice Omotosho held in a Certified True Copies (CTC), which was obtained by Daily Trust on Tuesday, that the defendant cannot lawfully abridge or vary the 90 days period for substitution of candidates under Section 31 of the Electoral Act, 2026.

He held thus: “THIS HONOURABLE COURT DECLARES THAT the press statement of 27 March, 2026 originated this action, consequently this suit is not statute barred having been filed on the 9, April, 2026.

“THIS HONOURABLE COURT HEREBY DECLARES 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.

“THIS HONOURABLE COURT HEREBY DECLARES that the Independent National Electoral Commission is empowered by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and the Electoral Act, 2026 to issue timetable for elections and to even alter same as it deems fit. However, the timetable must comply strictly with the timeframes in the Electoral Act, 2026.”

“THIS HONOURABLE COURT HEREBY DECLARES THAT the Defendant is also empowered to alter the timetable for the ultimate aim of giving effect to the provisions of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and Electoral Act.)

“THIS HONOURABLE COURT HEREBY DECLARES THAT the timetable for the conduct of the 2027 General Election issued by the Defendant is valid and legally issued, stating timeframe within which political parties are to hold their primaries and stating timeframe for the submission of membership registers of political parties.

“THIS HONOURABLE COURT HEREBY DECLARES that the Defendant cannot lawfully abridge or vary the 90 days period for substitution of candidates under Section 31 of the Electoral Act, 2026.

“THIS HONOURABLE COURT HEREBY DECLARES THAT the Defendant cannot abridge the time stipulated in section 29(1) of the Electoral Act 2026 given to political parties to submit the names of their candidates at (least 120 days to the date of Election.

“THIS HONOURABLE COURT HEREBY DECLARES THAT the Defendant is hereby ordered to amend the Election Timetable”.

Section 29(1) of the Electoral Act, 2026 provides that: “Every political party shall, not later than 120 days before the date appointed for a general election under this Act, submit to the Commission, in the prescribed Forms, the list of the candidates the party proposes to sponsor at the elections, who shall have emerged from valid primaries conducted by the political party.”

Section 31 of the Act states that: “A candidate may withdraw his candidature by notice in writing signed by him together with a sworn affidavit delivered personally by the candidate to the political party that nominated him for the election and the political party shall convey such withdrawal and the sworn affidavit to the Commission not later than 90 days to the election.”

The judge, however, upheld INEC’s authority to request party membership registers and prescribe time frames for primaries.

“The Defendant requesting for membership register of political parties and giving time frame within which to conduct primaries is not ultra vires the powers of the Defendant,” the court ruled.

The Court also voided the deadlines earlier fixed by INEC for submission of nomination forms.

“The deadline of 29th August 2026 and 16th September 2026 fixed for political parties to submit nomination forms for candidates for Presidential and National Assembly Elections as well as Governorship and House of Assembly Elections is void to the extent of its inconsistencies with the clear provisions of Section 29(1) of the Electoral Act 2026,” the judgment read.

Appearing for the SDP were Rilwan Okpanachi Esq and D.O Anyebe Esq, while Alex Iziyon (SAN), alongside other counsel, represented INEC.