Court affirms INEC’s powers to fix election timetable

…Orders review of 2027 schedule

A Federal High Court in Abuja has affirmed the powers of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to issue and revise election timetables, in a judgment that reinforces the electoral body’s authority ahead of the 2027 general elections while also setting limits on how far it can alter statutory timelines.

Justice James Omotosho, who delivered the judgment on Tuesday in a suit filed by the Social Democratic Party (SDP), held that INEC acted within its constitutional and statutory mandate in issuing the 2027 Election Timetable and Schedule of Activities, including timelines for party primaries and submission of membership registers.

The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/720/2026, challenged INEC’s powers under Sections 82 and 84(1) of the Electoral Act, 2026, arguing that the commission’s role in monitoring party primaries did not extend to prescribing timelines for political parties to conduct them.

The SDP had sought, among other reliefs, an order restraining INEC from enforcing timelines it claimed were inconsistent with the Electoral Act, particularly provisions relating to the submission of candidates and withdrawal timelines.

But Justice Omotosho ruled that INEC’s authority to conduct elections necessarily includes the power to issue subsidiary regulations such as election timetables in order to ensure orderly compliance with the Electoral Act.

“The issuance of a timetable is to give effect to the Electoral Act especially with all its various timelines,” the judge held, describing the election timetable as “a chain of events” beginning with submission of party membership registers, conduct of primaries and eventual voting.

He noted that excluding such preparatory processes from the timetable would render the electoral process incomplete and chaotic.

“Without this timetable, there would be chaos in our electoral system,” the court said.

The court further held that INEC’s powers derive not only from the Electoral Act but also from Section 285(14) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), affirming the commission’s discretion to amend or revise electoral schedules where necessary.

However, the court drew a clear distinction between INEC’s administrative powers and statutory timelines expressly guaranteed under the Electoral Act.

Justice Omotosho faulted aspects of INEC’s revised timetable which fixed August 22 and September 19, 2026 as deadlines for submission of candidate withdrawal notices for presidential, National Assembly, governorship and state assembly elections.

According to the court, the dates effectively shortened the 90-day period allowed under Section 31 of the Electoral Act for political parties to transmit candidate withdrawals and affidavits to INEC.

“The defendant therefore acted ultra vires its powers by reducing the time allowed by political parties,” the judge ruled.

The court also voided the August 29 and September 16, 2026 deadlines fixed by INEC for submission of nomination forms for presidential, National Assembly, governorship and House of Assembly candidates, holding that they were inconsistent with Section 29(1) of the Electoral Act which requires parties to submit candidates’ names at least 120 days before election day.

Justice Omotosho consequently ordered INEC to amend the 2027 Election Timetable and Schedule of Activities to align with Sections 29(1) and 31 of the Electoral Act, 2026.

While the SDP succeeded partially, the judgment represents a significant judicial endorsement of INEC’s broad administrative authority over the electoral process, particularly as political activities ahead of the 2027 elections begin to gather momentum.