THE FEDERAL High Court in Abuja on Tuesday affirmed the powers of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to issue timetable for elections and alter it as it deems fit.
Justice James Omotosho also held that the 2027 election timetable issued by INEC was 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.”
Justice Omotosho made the declaration while delivering a judgement in a suit filed by the Social Democratic Party (SDP) against INEC in the case marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/720/2026.
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 27thMarch, 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 timetable 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 even yet to start.
It further argued that its timetable released did not conflict with the provisions of the constitution and the Electoral Act and same did not bridge the timeline of the party.
INEC, which argued that the suit was premature and academic, urged the court to dismiss it.
Delivering the judgment, Justice Omotosho said that though the law is trite that a subsidiary legislation must not be at variance with the principal act, INEC is empowered to issue subsidiary legislation such as election timetable pursuant to Section 151 of the Electoral Act, 2026.
“The issuance of a timetable is to give effect to the Electoral Act especially with all its various timelines.The nature of the timetable ensures order and proper arrangement in the activities of political parties in the lead up to elections.
“Election timetable is a chain of events or actions stating the timeframe for the submission of membership register of political parties to be used for the purpose of the primaries and the election, timeframe for primaries and eventually gets to the real voting.
“Election timetable is not only date for voting but preparatory steps – which are conditional to valid election and nominations must be included in election timetable.
“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.
“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).”
The judge said on the issue of the timeframe for the substitution and withdrawal of ‘nominated candidates, it is provided for under Section 31 of the Electoral Act, 2026.
“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.”
According to the judge, 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,” the judge held.
Justice Omotosho, consequently, 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.
He 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.
The judge 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 same as it deems fit.
Justice Omotosho, however, held that 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 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 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 feast 120 days to the date of election.
“This court hereby declares 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 court hereby declares that the deadline of Aug. 29, 2026 and Sept. 16, 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.” (NAN)
