The Federal High Court in Abuja has affirmed the powers of the Independent National Electoral Commission to issue and alter election timetables for the conduct of elections.
It, however, held that although the commission is empowered to perform these functions, such powers must be exercised strictly in line with the timelines prescribed by the Electoral Act, 2026.
The court, therefore, ordered INEC to amend the election timetable for the 2027 elections and schedule of activities in compliance with Sections 29(1) and 31 of the Electoral Act, 2026.
The judgment comes as the electoral body appeals an earlier judgment nullifying parts of its revised guidelines for the 2027 general elections.
Justice James Omotosho, while delivering judgment on Tuesday in a suit filed by the Social Democratic Party in Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/720/2026, held that INEC is constitutionally empowered to issue election timetables and schedules of activities for elections.
The SDP had, in an originating summons filed on April 9, raised five questions for determination, including “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 party sought seven reliefs, among them an order restraining INEC from enforcing timelines allegedly inconsistent with the Electoral Act, 2026.
The plaintiff also prayed the court to declare that “the defendant cannot lawfully abridge or vary the 120-day statutory period in section 29(1) of the Electoral Act, 2026 by its timetable or press release dated 27th March, 2026.”
In its defence, INEC argued that its powers extended beyond receiving notices and monitoring party primaries to include organising and supervising elections, as well as issuing election timetables to ensure compliance with the Electoral Act.
The commission maintained that its revised timetable did not conflict with the Constitution or the Electoral Act and insisted that the suit was premature and academic.
Delivering judgment, Justice Omotosho held that although subsidiary legislation must not conflict with the principal legislation, INEC was empowered under Section 151 of the Electoral Act, 2026, to issue subsidiary regulations, including election timetables.
“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 starting from the timeframe for the submission of the membership register of political parties to be used for the purpose of the primaries and the election, the timeframe for primaries, and eventually leading to the real voting.
“Election timetable is not only the date for voting but preparatory steps – which are conditional to a valid election and nominations must be included in the election timetable,” the court held.
Justice Omotosho further declared that, “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).”
On the issue of withdrawal and substitution of candidates, Justice Omotosho held that Section 31 of the Electoral Act, 2026, gives political parties up to 90 days before an election to submit notices of withdrawal and supporting affidavits to INEC.
According to him, INEC’s revised timetable fixed August 22, 2026 and September 19, 2026, for presidential, National Assembly, governorship and House of Assembly candidates, thereby shortening the statutory period allowed under the law.
“The defendant therefore acted ultra vires its powers by reducing the time allowed by political parties to convey withdrawals and sworn affidavits 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 a timetable for elections, but it must do so in compliance with the time frames in the Electoral Act 2026.
0 Comments