COURT SCRAPS INEC’S 2027 TIMETABLE, GIVES PARTIES FREEDOM ON PRIMARIES
GREATRIBUNETVNEWS–JUDGE rules INEC overstepped by imposing deadlines not in Electoral Act 2026
Key Issues:
1. Court Voids Parts of INEC’s 2027 Election Timetable
_”The Federal High Court in Abuja has voided parts of INEC’s 2027 election timetable, ruling that the commission overstepped its powers by imposing timelines that conflict with the Electoral Act, 2026.”
2. INEC Lacks Power to Fix Primary Dates, Court Rules
_”Justice Mohammed Umar delivered the judgment on 21 May 2026 in a suit filed by the Youth Party, FHC/ABJ/CS/517/2026. He held that INEC lacks the statutory authority to fix or prescribe when political parties must conduct primaries and other pre-election activities.”
3. Unlawful Deadline Portions Set Aside
_”The court set aside the portions of INEC’s Revised Timetable and Schedule of Activities that imposed deadlines inconsistent with the law.”
Primaries and notices: INEC can receive notices and monitor primaries, but it cannot set the timetable for when parties must hold them.
Submission of candidate particulars: Section 29(1) requires parties to submit particulars not later than 120 days before an election. INEC cannot shorten that period.
Withdrawal and substitution: Section 31 allows substitution up to 90 days before an election. INEC cannot impose an earlier deadline.
Final candidate list: Section 32 does not allow INEC to publish the list before the 60-day minimum period.
End of campaigns: Section 98 does not permit INEC to fix campaigns to end two days before the election
Membership registers for replacement primaries: Section 33 means the membership register timeframe for regular primaries does not apply to replacement primaries.
—-What the ruling means in practice—
Lawyers say the most significant part of the judgment is the court’s interpretation of Section 33 on replacement primaries.
Normally, parties must submit membership registers within a set timeframe before a primary so INEC can verify eligible members.
Problems arise after primaries when a candidate withdraws, dies, is disqualified by a court, or is forced out by post-primary litigation.
INEC had applied the same strict register deadline to these emergency replacement primaries. Justice Umar disagreed. He held that the register timeframe for ordinary primaries does not apply to replacement primaries conducted for substituted candidates.
The practical effect is that replacement primaries, which are often urgent and unexpected, cannot be blocked by rigid timelines designed for planned primaries held months earlier. In legal terms, the court prioritized substance over technicality.
The implication is that INEC cannot use procedural requirements to frustrate a party’s statutory right to replace a withdrawn or disqualified candidate within the 90-day substitution window in the Electoral Act. Where the law gives a party the right to substitute, that right cannot be defeated by administrative conditions that make compliance impossible.
The Certified True Copy of the judgement was sighted by a NAN reporter (who first reported the development)on 22 May 2026
About the Author
