INEC timetable: Relief for opposition as parties weigh options after court ruling

With eight months to the 2027 presidential elections, a flurry of positive reactions yesterday trailed the Federal High Court ruling, which nullified some crucial timelines and processes outlined by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), with many stakeholders hailing the judgment as a welcome reprieve from the choking deadlines preparatory to next year’s general poll.

In a symbolic ruling, the Federal High Court in Abuja held that the electoral body exceeded its powers by imposing restrictive deadlines on political parties for the conduct of primaries and other pre-election activities.

Delivering the ruling in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/517/2026 filed by the Youth Party against INEC, Justice M. G. Umar averred that INEC lacks the statutory authority to prescribe timelines within which political parties must conduct their primaries for the nomination of candidates for the 2027 polls.

Further, the court declared that INEC cannot lawfully abridge or limit periods already guaranteed under the Electoral Act, 2026, regarding the submission of candidates’ particulars, withdrawal and substitution of candidates, publication of final lists, and campaign windows for political parties.

Consequently, Justice Umar set aside the portions of INEC’s Revised Timetable and Schedule of Activities for the 2027 General Elections that were found to be inconsistent with the Electoral Act.

Stakeholders, including political parties, Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) and Election Monitors, have expressed relief that the judiciary has at last woken up to its responsibilities as the bulwark against institutional excesses, even as members of the opposition political parties described the judgment as a watershed moment in Nigeria’s democratic journey.

Hailing the judgment, the African Democratic Congress (ADC) said it welcomes the ruling on the deadline for party primaries, among others. In a statement released in Abuja on Thursday evening, the National Publicity Secretary of the party, Bolaji Abdullahi, said ADC views the ruling as vindication of its earlier objections to key aspects of the electoral body’s guidelines at the time they were issued.

The opposition ADC also recalled its specific objections to the strict timelines on membership registration, as well as the conduct of party primaries. The statement said: “The decision of the court on these issues, including those that directly contradict the Constitution, is therefore a welcome vindication of our position,” the party said.

“The party also said the ruling, which removes the impediment placed by the guidelines on politicians who wish to seek alternative platforms to contest elections, was a positive development that promotes freedom of association. We believed at the time that that particular restriction was designed to prevent people from leaving the ruling party, APC. Now that the court has ruled against it, we are sure that, in the coming days, we will witness a mass exodus from the ruling party.”

Similarly, the Peoples Redemption Party (PRP) thanked the court for nullifying the INEC guidelines, even as it warned the commission against appealing the judgment, stressing that the ruling could strengthen internal democracy within political parties.

The party’s National Publicity Secretary, Muhammed Bello Ishaq, said that although it was carefully studying the judgment, on the surface, it believes that the ruling restores critical responsibilities that political parties believe were previously taken over by INEC.

While noting that the judgment broadens the scope for political parties to make decisions independently and removes what it described as “unhealthy regimentation” of party activities, PRP maintained that the ruling could positively impact Nigeria’s democratic culture by allowing political parties greater control over their internal processes.

The party, however, acknowledged that challenges may arise from the judgment, particularly if INEC decides to challenge the ruling at the appellate court, but expressed the hope that “patriots and influential stakeholders” should prevail on the commission against pursuing an appeal.

It was also discovered that the ruling party, the All Progressives Congress (APC), may benefit significantly from the judgment due to what it described as growing grievances arising from attempts to handpick candidates within the party.

Other political parties, PRP added, would also seek to explore opportunities provided by the judgment to expand membership and improve the quality of their candidates ahead of future elections.

On its part, the embattled PDP welcomed the judgment, describing the verdict as a major affirmation of the rule of law and internal democratic rights of political parties.

Spokesperson of the Kabiru Turaki-led Interim National Working Committee of the PDP, Ini Ememobong, said the verdict would strengthen democratic practices and allow political parties adequate room to organise their internal processes.

Also, the Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA) escalated the matter by calling for the resignation of INEC Chairman, Prof. Joash Amupitan, alleging that the court ruling had further deepened concerns over the electoral body’s neutrality.

National Coordinator of HURIWA, Emmanuel Onwubiko, said INEC must immediately comply with the judgment and adjust its electoral schedule in line with the court’s pronouncement.

While noting that the commission has little room for prolonged litigation due to the limited timeframe leading to the elections, HURIWA stated: “The implication is that INEC has to comply with the law and follow through with the judgment made by the competent court of law.

“It is too late in the day for INEC to appeal because of the shortness of time to the election, so INEC should comply and extend the deadline as the ruling of the court says.”

Leader of the Movement for Credible Election (MCE), Wale Okunniyi, described the judgment as a victory for internal democracy and wider political participation. The earlier timetable had created unnecessary pressure on politicians and political parties, especially smaller parties struggling to meet compressed deadlines.

“MCE had earlier called for the postponement of INEC’s timetable at least till September. The earlier arrangement appeared designed to corner political actors and limit political participation. With this judgment, politicians who feel shortchanged in their parties now have enough time to move to other platforms and pursue their ambitions,” he said.

Okunniyi added that the ruling would particularly benefit opposition parties by giving them more time to negotiate alliances, accommodate defectors, resolve internal disputes and strengthen their structures before the elections.

Also reacting, President of the Yoruba Ronu Leadership Forum, Akin Malaolu, said the court had restored fairness to the electoral process by placing limits on INEC’s powers.

Malaolu claimed that several aggrieved members of the ruling All Progressives Congress who were dissatisfied with the outcome of the party’s recent primaries had already begun exploring alternative political platforms, including the African Democratic Congress.

He argued that the judgment would reduce post-primary tension and anti-party activities within the APC because aggrieved aspirants now have more time to defect legally and participate in other parties’ processes without being shut out by INEC deadlines.

“The initial timetable appeared aimed at weakening opposition parties by limiting the time available for consultations, mergers and accommodation of new entrants. This judgment changes that equation,” he said.

National Vice Chairman (Southwest) of the PDP, Kamorudeen Ajibade, also welcomed the judgment, describing it as “a major relief” for opposition parties.

Ajibade urged INEC not to appeal the decision, insisting that the court had merely reaffirmed the provisions of the Electoral Act and the constitutional rights of political parties.

Ajibade, who is also a lawyer, added that the judgment reaffirmed that INEC’s administrative powers remain subordinate to the Electoral Act and subject to judicial review.

According to him, “The legal argument is that while INEC has powers to issue election timetables and schedules, it cannot create timelines that contradict or effectively amend rights and periods expressly provided by the Electoral Act itself.

“The constitutional basis for the court’s intervention comes from the judiciary’s power to interpret laws and determine whether actions of government agencies comply with existing statutes. So, if a party believes INEC acted “ultra vires” (beyond its powers), the court can review and nullify those actions.

“Legally, the issue is not whether INEC can issue a timetable, it clearly can,  but whether the commission can impose deadlines that restrict statutory rights already created by the Electoral Act.”

Also, a former presidential candidate and business mogul, Gbenga Hashim, described the judgment as a victory for the rule of law and constitutional order, even as he applauded Justice M. G. Umar for what he termed a courageous and principled decision that checked administrative overreach and reaffirmed the supremacy of the Electoral Act, 2026.

Hashim said he had consistently maintained that INEC must operate strictly within the confines of the law, revealing that he had earlier written an open letter to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, warning against actions capable of undermining the Electoral Act.

Hashim urged INEC to fully comply with the judgment and ensure that future electoral guidelines strictly conform to the provisions of the law.

Similarly, the Coalition of United Political Parties (CUPP), in its reaction, urged INEC to immediately revise its 2027 election timetable in line with the court ruling. The Acting National Chairman of CUPP, Peter Ameh, while commending the Federal High Court for “this progressive and constitution-aligned judgment,” noted that the ruling expands democratic space by restoring party autonomy over internal processes that INEC had sought to regulate through its timetable.

According to the CUPP, the exemption of substitution primaries from the strict timelines of the Electoral Act, the nullification of the 21-day membership register submission requirement for such primaries, and the affirmation that INEC cannot unilaterally shorten the statutory windows for candidate submission and publication of final candidate lists stand out as gains of the landmark ruling.

The ruling is expected to have significant implications for preparations towards the 2027 general elections, particularly regarding the balance between INEC’s administrative authority and the statutory autonomy granted to political parties under the Electoral Act.

At the heart of the dispute is the interpretation of Sections 29, 31, 32, 33, 82, 84(1) and 98 of the Electoral Act, 2026, which outline timelines for candidate nominations, substitutions, party primaries and campaign activities.

The court held that while INEC retains powers to supervise and observe party primaries, those powers do not include altering statutory timelines enacted by the National Assembly.

The decision could reshape electoral planning by reaffirming the supremacy of legislative provisions over administrative guidelines issued by regulatory institutions, as well as compel INEC to undertake an immediate review of its election schedule to align it with the Electoral Act.

For political parties already navigating internal negotiations, alliances and nomination contests ahead of the 2027 polls, the verdict may provide what many see as a crucial extension of political breathing space. (Guardian)