The Federal High Court in Abuja has affirmed that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has constitutional authority to set and adjust election timetables for elections, even as it continues its appeal against an earlier judgment that struck down parts of its revised guidelines for the 2027 general elections.
In a case filed by the Social Democratic Party (SDP) in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/720/2026, Justice James Omotosho ruled that INEC is empowered by the Constitution and Electoral Act to issue election timetables and activity schedules.
However, the court emphasized that this power must be exercised within the limits set by the Electoral Act, 2026.
The SDP had asked the court to determine whether INEC’s authority under Sections 82 and 84(1) of the Electoral Act extended to setting timelines for political party primaries. The party also sought to stop INEC from enforcing timelines it believed conflicted with the law, especially the 120-day requirement in section 29(1).
INEC argued that its responsibilities go beyond monitoring party primaries to include organizing elections and issuing timetables to ensure compliance with legal provisions. It maintained that its revised schedule was lawful and consistent with the Constitution, describing the suit as unnecessary at that stage.
Delivering judgment, Justice Omotosho held that although subsidiary rules must not contradict the main law, INEC is authorized under Section 151 of the Electoral Act, 2026 to issue regulations, including election timetables.
The judge explained that election timetables are meant to organize the entire electoral process, from submission of party membership registers to primaries and ultimately voting. He noted that they are not limited to election day alone but include all preparatory activities.
He further stated that without such a timetable, the electoral process would become disorganized, adding that the Constitution also supports INEC’s role in this regard.
On the issue of candidate withdrawal and substitution, the court noted that Section 31 of the Electoral Act, 2026 gives political parties up to 90 days before elections to submit withdrawal notices and affidavits to INEC.
The judge observed that INEC’s revised timetable had set deadlines that effectively shortened this statutory period, which the court found inconsistent with the law.
He therefore held that while INEC has the power to issue election timetables, it must ensure that such schedules comply strictly with the timelines provided in the Electoral Act.
The court ruled that the SDP succeeded in part, and also confirmed that the case was not time-barred since INEC’s March 27 announcement led to the lawsuit filed on April 9.
The court further declared that INEC can issue and adjust election timetables, but not in a way that violates statutory provisions, particularly the 90-day rule for candidate substitution and the 120-day requirement for submission of candidates’ names.
It consequently ordered INEC to amend its 2027 election timetable to align with Sections 29(1) and 31 of the Electoral Act, 2026, while affirming that requesting party membership registers and setting timelines for primaries fall within its legal powers.
The ruling follows a separate Federal High Court decision that had earlier invalidated parts of INEC’s revised timetable, a judgment INEC is currently appealing.
