By Isa Abdul, Abuja

The Federal High Court in Abuja’s nullification of portions of the 2027 election timetable issued by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), has drastically altered the hitherto rigid prescriptions that made it impossible to move to another party once an aspirant failed to get nominated to stand for election in their original party.

While deciding on Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/517/2026 between the Youth Party and INEC, Justice M.G Umar held that the electoral body acted outside its statutory powers by imposing restrictive timelines on political parties for the conduct of primaries and other pre-election activities ahead of the 2027 general elections.

In the originating summons dated and filed March 11, by its counsel, J. O. Olotu, on behalf of the plaintiff sought six reliefs and the judge granted all the plaintiff’s reliefs.

What the judge said

The judge held that INEC cannot lawfully abridge or limit the statutory periods provided under the Electoral Act in relation to submission of personal particulars of candidates, withdrawal and substitution of candidates, among others.

Consequently, he set aside the portions of INEC’s revised timetable and schedule of activities for the 2027 general elections, which imposed timelines inconsistent with the Electoral Act, 2026.

“It is hereby ordered as follows:

“A declaration is hereby made that upon a proper consideration and interpretation of the provisions of Sections 29, 82 and 84(1) of the Electoral Act, 2026, the powers of the defendant to receive notice of party primaries and the personal particulars of candidates, and its duty to attend, observe and monitor such primaries, does not extend to fixing or prescribing the timetable within which political parties may conduct their primary elections for the purpose of nominating candidates for the 2027 general elections.

“A declaration is made that having regards to Section 29(1) of the Electoral Act, 2026, which requires political parties to submit the personal particulars of their candidates not later than 120 days to an election, the defendant cannot lawfully abridge or limit that statutory period by prescribing a shorter time frame in its 2027 election timetable.

“A declaration is made that having regards to Section 31 of the Electoral Act, 2026 which permits political parties to withdraw and substitute candidates not later than 90 days to the conduct of an election, the defendant cannot lawfully abridge or limit that statutory period by fixing earlier deadline for the withdrawal and replacement of candidates in its 2027 election timetable.

“A declaration is made that in regards to Section 32 of the Electoral Act, 2026, the defendant does not possess the statutory power to publish the final list of candidates for the 2027 general election before the 60 days minimum period prescribed by law.

“A declaration is made that upon a proper construction of Section 98 of the Electoral Act, 2026, the defendant does not possess the statutory power or authority to fix in its timetable for the 2027 general elections for campaign to end two days before the elections.

“A declaration is made that upon proper interpretation to Section 33 of the Electoral Act, 2026, the time frame prescribed by the defendant for submission of membership registers for the conduct of primary elections is NOT applicable to primary elections conducted for the purpose of replacing withdrawn candidates.

“Order is hereby granted setting aside or nullifying the time-frames imposed by the defendant in its Revised Timetable and Schedule of Activities for 2027 General Election for the conduct of primary elections by political parties for the 2027 general elections,” the court held.

The court also ruled that the submission of personal particulars of candidates by their political parties for the 2027 general elections and campaigning for the 2027 general elections are inconsistent with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026.

Many reactions have since trailed the ruling. For instance, the Deputy Director, Voter Education and Publicity of Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) Wilfred Olisama, in his reaction to the press said: “I think what the people challenged was that a candidate who probably was not successful in the primaries in his own party can switch to another party and contest, especially when parties have submitted names of their members.”

Olisama added that: “It is not an issue of INEC in the first place. I think they should be challenging the law, certainly not INEC.”

On whether the commission’s timelines contradicted the Electoral Act, Olisama argued that the commission was empowered to create operational timelines within the limits of the law.

“There is always this window or buffer so that even when parties are doing things, they can have some level of cushion to do adjustments before deadlines.”

He explained further that statutory deadlines in the Electoral Act represented the latest possible dates, but did not stop the commission from setting earlier timelines to enable smooth electoral preparations. He pointed out that: “It doesn’t mean because the law says this, that is exactly when parties should do what they want to do. That is where the commission comes in with rules on how those timeframes should be used.”

Drawing an analogy with voter registration, the INEC official noted that although the law provides deadlines for publication of the voter register, the commission usually closes registration earlier to allow time for integration and processing before the statutory deadline.

“So I think the commission will look at the operational ability of it for them to streamline,” adding however that he would be in a better position to comment after reviewing the judgement and the issues raised therein.

In his reaction to the judgement, Dr. Gbenga Hashim, a former Presidential candidate said: “I have consistently argued that INEC must act within the confines of the Electoral Act. Unfortunately, those warnings were not heeded. This judgment has now vindicated that position.”

Hashim added that the ruling was timely and necessary. “I commend Justice M.G. Umar for his courage and fidelity to justice. This is a sound judgment that reinforces the supremacy of the law and restores confidence in our democratic institutions.”

In its reaction, the Peoples Redemption Party (PRP) called on Nigerians to join the party to wrestle Nigeria from bad governance. The National Publicity Secretary of PRP, Muhammed Bello Ishaq, in a statement said, “Our party is studying the judgment very carefully. On the face of it, it promotes the growth and development of our democratic culture by restoring critical responsibilities to political parties, which INEC had usurped. It expands the scope for decision-making within parties and removes the unhealthy regimentation of our activities.”

In their reaction through a statement released on Thursday evening, signed by its National Publicity Secretary, Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi, ADC 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 expressed happiness that the ruling had removed the unnecessary obstacles placed by the guidelines on politicians who wish to seek alternative platforms to contest elections..

To Yiaga Africa, the court verdict is welcome according its Executive Director, Samson Itodo. He defended the court judgement nullifying aspects of INEC’s guidelines, saying political parties should have the constitutional right to seek judicial redress where they perceive injustice in the electoral process.

He added that Yiaga Africa had consistently questioned the good in the compressed timelines introduced in the last-minute amendments to the Electoral Act by the National Assembly.

Itodo warned that: “Whatever course the commission chooses must be guided by the imperatives of protecting the integrity, inclusiveness, and credibility of the 2027 electoral process, not administrative convenience.”

The last may not be heard about the court’s judgment especially if INEC decides to appeal.