Court Affirms INEC’s Authority to Issue and Adjust Election Timetables, Upholds 2027 Schedule
By Stephen Amaya Cynthia
E-ISSN:2354-4481
A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has affirmed the constitutional and statutory powers of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to issue election timetables and make necessary adjustments to such schedules in accordance with the law.
The judgment, delivered by Justice James Omotosho, represents a significant judicial endorsement of the electoral commission’s regulatory authority and comes shortly after INEC filed an appeal against a separate ruling that nullified portions of its election guidelines.
In the ruling, the court declared that the 2027 election timetable issued by INEC was validly made and legally enforceable. Justice Omotosho held that the commission acted within its powers in prescribing timelines for political parties to conduct primary elections and submit membership registers required for electoral processes.
The decision was delivered in a suit instituted by the Social Democratic Party (SDP) against INEC, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/720/2026, in which the party challenged aspects of the commission’s timetable and regulatory powers.
The SDP had approached the court through an originating summons filed on April 9, seeking judicial interpretation of several provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026. Among the issues raised was whether INEC’s statutory responsibilities of receiving notices and monitoring party primaries extend to prescribing timelines within which political parties must conduct those primaries.
The party sought several declaratory and injunctive reliefs, including an order restraining INEC from enforcing timelines it considered inconsistent with provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026.
The SDP also urged the court to declare that INEC lacked the authority to alter or abridge the 120-day statutory period stipulated under Section 29(1) of the Electoral Act through administrative directives, election timetables, or public notices issued by the commission.
In its defence, INEC argued that its constitutional mandate extends beyond observing party primaries to include the broader responsibility of organising, supervising, and regulating electoral processes. The commission maintained that issuing election timetables is an essential component of that mandate and is necessary for effective implementation of the Electoral Act.
INEC further contended that the timetable in dispute neither interfered with the internal affairs of political parties nor violated any provisions of the Constitution or Electoral Act. The commission also described the suit as premature and lacking any immediate cause for judicial intervention.
Delivering judgment, Justice Omotosho reiterated the established legal principle that subsidiary legislation must remain consistent with the principal legislation from which it derives authority. However, he noted that Section 151 of the Electoral Act, 2026 expressly empowers INEC to issue subsidiary regulations, including election timetables, to facilitate the implementation of the Act.
According to the court, election timetables serve as critical instruments for coordinating and regulating electoral activities, ensuring orderliness and certainty throughout the electoral process.
The judge observed that an election timetable encompasses far more than the date of voting. He explained that it includes key preparatory activities such as the submission of political party membership registers, scheduling of party primaries, nomination processes, candidate substitutions, withdrawals, and other statutory requirements that precede the conduct of elections.
Justice Omotosho stressed that excluding these preparatory stages from the timetable would render the electoral process incomplete and potentially chaotic, thereby undermining effective election administration.
He consequently held that INEC possesses the legal authority to issue election timetables and regulate electoral timelines in furtherance of its constitutional and statutory responsibilities.
The court also referenced Section 285(14) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), noting that the constitutional framework recognizes and supports the commission’s role in managing electoral processes through established timelines and procedures.
On the issue of candidate withdrawal and substitution, the court drew attention to Section 31 of the Electoral Act, 2026, which outlines the procedure for voluntary withdrawal from an election.
Under the provision, a candidate intending to withdraw must submit a written notice personally signed and accompanied by an affidavit to the political party that nominated him or her. The political party is thereafter required to forward the withdrawal notice and supporting affidavit to INEC not later than 90 days before the date fixed for the election.
The judgment is expected to provide greater legal clarity on INEC’s powers in election administration and may influence ongoing debates surrounding electoral regulations ahead of the 2027 general elections.
