A Federal High Court in Abuja has affirmed the powers of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to issue and amend election timetables in line with its constitutional and statutory responsibilities.
Delivering judgment on Tuesday, Justice James Omotosho held that the 2027 election timetable released by INEC, including timelines for political parties’ primaries and submission of membership registers, was valid and legally issued.
The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/720/2026, was instituted by the Social Democratic Party (SDP), with INEC listed as the sole defendant.
Justice Omotosho ruled that although subsidiary legislation must not conflict with the principal law, INEC was duly empowered under Section 151 of the Electoral Act 2026 to issue subsidiary regulations such as election timetables. According to the judge, the timetable was designed to give effect to the provisions and timelines contained in the Electoral Act.
“Election timetable, without date for submission of parties’ membership register, timeframe for primaries, etc is inchoate. Without this timetable, there would be chaos in our Electoral system.
“This court is therefore convinced that the defendant is empowered by the Electoral Act to issue timetables for elections.
Read Also: Tinubu Defends Reforms, Promises Stronger Economy in Sallah Message
“To further buttress this, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which is the grundnorm of all laws in Nigeria alluded to this under Section 285(14) of the Constitution (as amended),” he said.
Justice Omotosho added that the timeframe for the substitution and withdrawal of nominated candidates is provided for under Section 31 of the Electoral Act, 2026.
He said: “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.”
He added: “From the above, political parties are by law allowed the liberty to submit the withdrawal and sworn affidavit to the defendant not later than 90 days to the election.
“The defendant in the revised timetable however stipulated the 22nd of August, 2026 and 19th September, 2026 as the date for candidates for Presidential and National Assembly elections and Governorship and House of Assembly.
“These dates are far larger than the 90 days allowed by the Electoral Act, 2026. This means that the timetable has reduced the timeframe for parties to submit withdrawal to the defendant.
“The defendant therefore acted ultra vires its powers by reducing the time allowed by political parties to convey withdrawals and sworn affidavit to the defendant contrary to the 90 days stipulated by the Electoral Act, 2026.
“In the final analysis, the defendant is empowered by law to issue timetable for elections but it must do so in compliance with the time frames in the Electoral Act 2026.
“Therefore, the claims of the plaintiff (SDP) succeeds in part,” justice Omotosho said.
He proceeded to declared that the suit was not statute barred contrary to INEC’s submission as the March 27 press statement originated the action, having been filed on April 9.
The judge also declared that the 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 organise their primary elections for the purpose of the stated 2027 election.
He further declared that INEC is empowered by the 1999 constitution (as amended) and the Electoral Act, 2026 to issue timetable for elections and to even alter the said timetable as it deems fit.
The judge was however, of the view that the timetable must comply strictly, with the timeframes in the Electoral Act, 2026.
He said: “This honourable court hereby declared 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 declared 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 declared 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 feast 120 days to the date of election.
“This honourable court hereby declared that the defendant is hereby ordered to amend the Election Timetable 2027 and Schedule of Activities in compliance with Sections 29 (1) & 31 of the Electoral Act, 2026.
” This honourable court hereby declared that the defendant requesting for membership register of political parties and giving timeframe within which to conduct primaries is not ultra vires the powers of the defendant.
“This honourable court hereby declared that the deadline of 29’th 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 Inconsistences with the clear provisions of Section 29(1) of the Electoral Act 2026.”
The SDP had, in the originating summons filed on April 9, raised five questions for the court’s 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.”
