A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has ruled that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) lacks the legal authority to unilaterally impose or alter timelines on political activities such as party primaries, candidate nominations, and replacements where such timelines are already provided for in the Electoral Act.
The judgment, delivered in a suit challenging INEC’s recent timetable adjustments for the 2027 general elections, held that the commission’s actions amounted to an overreach of its constitutional powers.
According to the court, while INEC is empowered to regulate and issue guidelines for elections, it cannot set deadlines that contradict or shorten provisions already clearly established by the Electoral Act.
The court further held that political parties retain their statutory rights to conduct primaries and manage internal nomination processes within the framework and timelines provided by law, stressing that such authority cannot be overridden by administrative directives from the electoral body.
The ruling has sparked widespread political interpretations, particularly regarding its implications for defections and candidate substitutions during the primary election season.
Some observers argue that the decision may create wider operational flexibility for political actors, especially candidates who lose party primaries and seek opportunities in other parties before final candidate lists are submitted to INEC.
However, legal analysts caution that the judgment does not abolish existing provisions of the Electoral Act governing defection and substitution, but rather clarifies the limits of INEC’s regulatory powers.
The court’s decision is also expected to be reviewed by INEC, with indications that the electoral body may consider an appeal.
As political parties intensify preparations ahead of the next general elections, the ruling is already generating debate over how much control INEC can exercise in shaping the electoral timetable and internal party processes.