The Federal High Court,Abuja, ruled that INEC cannot provide timelines to regulate how political parties conducts their internal primaries ahead of the 2027 general elections.
KaNo—
The Federal High Court in Abuja has nullified crucial aspects of the timetable issued by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) for key pre-election activities, including the conduct of primary elections of political parties, ahead of the 2027 general elections.
The judgement,delivered by judge, M. G. Umar, on Wednesday, gutted key parts of INEC’s Revised Timetable and Schedule of Activities for 2027 General Election.
The decision may likely send INEC back to the drawing board in the preparation for the 2027 general elections.the judge set aside not just the timeframe for primary elections but also post-primary election activities of political parties.
Crucial areas affected by the judgement include schedules for the conduct of primary elections of political parties,timeframes for the nomination, withdrawal and replacement of particulars of candidates by their political parties and the publication of the final list of candidates for the 2027 general elections by INEC.
Court Nullifies INEC Order On Primary Elections Deadline
The judgement was delivered following a suit filed by the Youth Party, challenging several provisions of INEC’s revised election schedule.
The judgement came at the time when many political parties, acting based on INEC’s timetable and schedule of activities issued on 26 February, are at the stage of completing their primary elections for elective positions in the lead-up to the 2027 general elections.the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) has just the presidential primary election left to be conducted.
The pre-election activities, as scheduled by INEC, were designed to culminate in the presidential and National Assembly elections on 16 January 2027 and the governorship and state Houses of Assembly elections on 6 February.
The court stated that while INEC has a supervisory role over elections, it cannot prescribe binding timelines that regulate how and when political parties conduct their internal primaries.
How It Started
INEC had earlier released a framework titled “Regulations for the Conduct of Political Party Primaries”, designed to guide how political parties nominate candidates for elections.
INEC introduced the regulations to strengthen internal party democracy and ensure transparency in candidate selection.
In the document, the commission said the framework was meant to highlight the key principles and documentation required for the successful conduct of party primaries.
It explained that the regulations were not only anchored on legal requirements but also intended to promote democratic practices within political parties.
Court Nullifies INEC Order On Primary Elections Deadline
INEC added that consistent compliance by parties would improve transparency in the electoral process and deepen Nigeria’s democratic environment.
The regulation was first issued in 2014 under former INEC Chairman Attahiru Jega, drawing authority from the Nigerian Constitution and the Electoral Act 2010.
It required political parties to give all eligible members equal opportunity to participate in primaries and barred exclusionary conditions based on sex, religion, ethnicity or wealth.
The regulations also required parties to notify INEC at least 21 days before primaries, stating whether they would adopt direct or indirect primaries and providing full details of venues, delegates, aspirants and party guidelines.
Court Nullifies INEC Order On Primary Elections Deadline
It further empowered INEC to monitor primaries and determine compliance with electoral laws.
At the hearing, lawyer to the Youth Party, J. O. Olotu, urged the court to set aside the disputed portions of the timetable, insisting that the commission had effectively rewritten statutory provisions through administrative guidelines.
INEC, represented by Sarafa Yusuf, defended its timetable, maintaining that its regulations were necessary for effective election planning and coordination.
The court had earlier heard arguments from both parties and reserved judgement after the final addresses
The Judgement
Mr Umar agreed with the Youth Party and ruled that INEC’s powers do not extend to prescribing timelines for the internal nomination processes of political parties.
He ruled that Sections 29, 82 and 84(1) of the Electoral Act 2026 only empower INEC to receive notices of primaries, monitor the process and collect candidates’ particulars, but not to determine when political parties must hold their primaries.
The judge held that INEC cannot shorten statutory timelines clearly set out in the Electoral Act.
He explained that Section 29(1) allows political parties to submit candidates’ particulars not later than 120 days before an election, and that no administrative timetable can lawfully reduce that period.
Court Nullifies INEC Order On Primary Elections Deadline
Mr Umar also held that Section 31 of the Act gives political parties up to 90 days before an election to withdraw and substitute candidates, and INEC cannot impose an earlier cut-off.
On the publication of candidates’ list, the court ruled that Section 32 does not allow INEC to publish the final list earlier than the 60-day minimum prescribed by law.
He added that doing so would amount to an unlawful amendment of the statute.
The court further held that INEC acted outside its powers when it fixed campaign activities to end two days before the election, describing the provision as inconsistent with Section 98 of the Electoral Act.
Court Nullifies INEC Order On Primary Elections Deadline
On party registers used for primaries, the judge ruled that INEC’s prescribed timelines do not apply where parties conduct primaries for the replacement of withdrawn candidates.
Orders
Mr Umar consequently set aside several provisions of INEC’s revised timetable for the 2027 general elections.
He nullified the timelines relating to party primaries, submission of candidates’ particulars, withdrawal and substitution of candidates, publication of final candidate lists and campaign deadlines, holding that they conflict with the Electoral Act 2026.
The court stressed that those provisions could not stand because they attempted to alter statutory timelines fixed by the legislature.
