Opinion
By Charles Ude
NIGERIA’S electoral process is once again caught in a storm of judicial contradictions. Two judges of the Federal High Court, Abuja Division, have delivered conflicting rulings on the Independent National Electoral Commission’s (INEC) 2027 timetable, leaving the electoral body stranded and the public bewildered.
The Conflicting Judgments
On May 21, 2026, Justice Mohammed Umar struck down INEC’s deadlines for party registers and primaries, ruling them unconstitutional and beyond INEC’s powers. Just five days later, Justice J.K. Omotosho, in SDP v. INEC (FHC/ABJ/CS/720/2026), upheld INEC’s authority to fix primary dates, describing the timetable as an “indivisible chain of events.” Yet, he admitted that INEC could not shorten statutory deadlines under the Electoral Act, 2026.
This clash has paralyzed INEC and drawn sharp criticism. Femi Falana, SAN, condemned Omotosho’s ruling as a breach of judicial discipline, stressing that once Umar’s judgment was delivered, only the Court of Appeal could revisit it. Professor Ernest Ojukwu, SAN, added that allowing two judges of equal jurisdiction to create parallel realities undermines predictability and erodes public confidence in the judiciary.
Why Omotosho’s Ruling Fails
1. Judicial Comity Ignored: Judges of equal rank cannot overrule one another. Once Umar invalidated the timetable, Omotosho lacked authority to revive it.
2. The “Indivisible Chain” Fallacy: An unlawful timetable cannot be partly valid. As Lord Denning famously said in UAC v. MacFoy, “You cannot put something on nothing.”
3. Appellate Role Usurped: Only the Court of Appeal can correct Umar’s ruling. Omotosho’s attempt to do so created institutional chaos.
Justice Omotosho got it wrong and erred in law.
The Way Forward
An appeal must challenge Omotosho’s ruling on two fronts:
– Procedural: His disregard for coordinate jurisdiction and judicial discipline.
– Substantive: The impossibility of salvaging primaries from a timetable already tainted by statutory illegality.
Judicial Accountability: Preventing Future Missteps
This crisis also raises a broader issue: how can judges be held accountable when their rulings, whether careless or deliberate, undermine the system?
– Judicial Peer Review: The National Judicial Council (NJC) should strengthen internal mechanisms to review judgments that openly conflict with subsisting orders.
– Mandatory Training: Regular education on constitutional hierarchy, judicial comity, and electoral law would reduce doctrinal errors.
– Transparent Sanctions: Proven misconduct or reckless disregard for precedent should attract clear sanctions, from warnings to suspension, applied openly to restore public trust.
– Swift Appellate Oversight: The Court of Appeal must act quickly to harmonize conflicting rulings, ensuring predictability and discouraging forum shopping.
Conclusion
Falana exposes the procedural breach; Ojukwu highlights the doctrinal flaw. Together, they show that Omotosho’s judgment is unsustainable. But the lesson goes deeper: judges are guardians of the rule of law, not architects of confusion. When coordinate courts speak with contradictory voices, they weaken democracy itself.
Accountability, through peer review, training, sanctions, and appellate oversight, is essential to ensure judicial authority is exercised with discipline, consistency, and respect for the constitutional order. Until the Court of Appeal intervenes, INEC remains trapped in regulatory limbo, and the credibility of Nigeria’s judicial process hangs precariously in the balance.
By Charles Ude, Esq
Author and Legal Practitioner
EMAIL: Charlesude2014@gmail.com
A.I
May 28, 2026
Tags: Charles Ude INEC