The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has warned that recent Federal High Court rulings invalidating aspects of its timetable and schedule of activities could severely disrupt preparations for the 2027 general election if not urgently clarified by appellate courts.
INEC Chairman, Professor Joash Amupitan, raised these concerns on Tuesday, 9 June, during the Commission’s second quarterly consultative meeting with leaders of political parties in Abuja.
Professor Amupitan disclosed that the electoral umpire has already filed appeals against two judgments of the Federal High Court which questioned specific operational windows contained in INEC’s timetable for the 2027 polls. While emphasizing that the Commission respects judicial decisions, he argued that the judgments raise significant legal questions regarding the extent of INEC’s constitutional and statutory powers to coordinate and regulate electoral activities.
The Federal High Court in Abuja recently delivered two major rulings invalidating key compressed timelines in the 2027 general election timetable. The courts ruled that while INEC possesses the constitutional authority to issue and adjust election schedules, it cannot use administrative guidelines to shorten or override the statutory windows guaranteed to political parties by the Electoral Act 2026.
Professor Amupitan explained that in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/517/2026 (Youth Party v. INEC), delivered on 20 May 2026, the court challenged specific deadlines within the Commission’s schedule. Conversely, in a subsequent judgment delivered on 26 May 2026, in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/720/2026 (Social Democratic Party v. INEC), the court affirmed the Commission’s authority to issue an electoral timetable but nullified timelines relating specifically to the nomination and substitution of candidates.
“In view of the differing conclusions reached in the judgments and in order to ensure certainty and stability in preparations for the 2027 General Election, the Commission has filed appeals against the decisions and has taken the necessary legal steps to obtain authoritative pronouncements from the appellate courts,” Professor Amupitan stated.
The INEC Chairman maintained that the activities contained within the timetable are interrelated operational processes. He noted that while the Electoral Act prescribes timelines for certain milestones, several other critical processes are not explicitly provided for in the text of the law but must be accommodated within the overall calendar.
These include the submission and verification of party membership registers, monitoring of party primaries across the federation, uploading the names of winners onto the Commission’s designated portal, candidate nominations, printing of ballot papers and result sheets, voter education, training of personnel, and the deployment of sensitive materials.
“The absence of coordinated timelines for such activities would create uncertainty, disrupt election planning, and undermine the Commission’s constitutional responsibility to organise, undertake, and supervise elections in an efficient and credible manner,” he warned.
He added that environmental and logistical factors such as seasonal weather conditions, challenging terrain, procurement cycles, and the configuration of the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) require strict, harmonized scheduling. Despite the litigation, Professor Amupitan assured political parties and the public that the Commission remains fully committed to conducting the 2027 general election in compliance with the Constitution and lawful judicial pronouncements.
Responding at the consultative meeting, the National Chairman of the Inter-Party Advisory Council (IPAC), Dr Yusuf Mamman Dantalle, attributed the widespread friction during the recently concluded party primaries to the legislative ban on indirect primaries.
Dr Dantalle stated that the implementation of Section 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026, which restricts political parties to either consensus arrangements or direct primaries, had triggered severe operational difficulties and avoidable internal conflicts. He argued that the removal of indirect primaries eliminated a flexible administrative option that previously allowed parties to manage internal competition and defuse tensions among aspirants.
According to IPAC, many political parties were forced to adopt consensus arrangements despite having multiple aspirants who had already purchased nomination forms. In several instances, aspirants were allegedly pressured by party hierarchies to step down in favor of preferred candidates, leading to deep dissatisfaction and subsequent litigations.
Dr Dantalle further alleged that to circumvent the logistical complications and immense costs associated with direct primaries, some parties deliberately restricted access to nomination forms or failed to adequately publicize primary election schedules.
“The experience of the just-concluded nomination exercise demonstrates that the removal of indirect primaries created considerable constraints for political parties,” Dr Dantalle said, describing the fallout as an unintended consequence of the current legal framework.
The IPAC Chairman also expressed deep concern over the rigid timeline given to parties to submit updated membership registers alongside National Identification Numbers (NIN), noting that many genuine members were disenfranchised due to logistical hurdles.
Recalling that IPAC had previously warned about these exact implications during its February 2026 General Assembly in Abuja, Dr Dantalle urgently called upon the National Assembly to review the Electoral Act 2026, reinstate flexibility for party primaries, and strengthen Nigeria’s internal party democracy before the commencement of the general elections.
Leave a comment