The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has nullified the 2027 General Election timetable issued by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
Justice Mohammed Umar, in a ruling delivered on a suit brought by Youth Party, held that INEC’s action imposed restrictive timeframes on political parties for the conduct of primaries and other pre-election activities contrary to the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026.
In the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/517/2026, the Youth Party, which stood as the plantiff, sued INEC as sole defendant.
The plaintiff, in the originating summons dated and filed March 11, sought six reliefs.
In his ruling, Justice Umar granted all the plaintiff’s six reliefs.
The presiding judge held that INEC lacked the statutory power to fix or prescribe the timeframe within which political parties must conduct their primaries for the nomination of candidates for the 2027 general elections.
Umar declared 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.
He, therefore, 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 timeframe 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 having 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 2 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.