COURT UPHOLDS INEC’S POWER TO ISSUE ELECTION TIMETABLE, ORDERS AMENDMENT OVER ELECTORAL ACT INCONSISTENCIES
Read Time:2 Minute, 12 Second
Agency Report
Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court has affirmed that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is legally empowered to issue election timetables guiding political party primaries and other preparatory activities ahead of elections.
The court made the declaration while delivering judgment in a suit filed by the Social Democratic Party (SDP) challenging INEC’s 2027 election timetable.
The SDP had asked the court to determine whether, under Sections 82 and 84(1) of the Electoral Act 2026, INEC could lawfully fix timelines for political parties’ primaries and submission of membership registers. The party also sought an order restraining the commission from enforcing timelines it considered inconsistent with the Electoral Act.
INEC, however, argued that its powers extend beyond mere monitoring of primaries, insisting that it is constitutionally mandated to organise, supervise elections and issue timetables to ensure compliance with the Electoral Act. The commission further maintained that its timetable did not interfere with the internal affairs of political parties.
Delivering judgment, Justice Omotosho held that INEC is empowered under Section 151 of the Electoral Act 2026 to issue subsidiary legislation, including election timetables, to give effect to statutory provisions and ensure orderly electoral processes.
He explained that election timetables cover a chain of activities, including submission of party membership registers, conduct of primaries, and nomination of candidates, noting that such planning is essential to prevent electoral chaos.
“The issuance of a timetable is to give effect to the Electoral Act, especially with its various timelines,” the judge held, adding that without such a framework, the electoral process would be “inchoate.”
However, the court also ruled that INEC acted outside its powers by setting deadlines that contradicted statutory provisions, particularly Section 31 of the Electoral Act, which provides a 90-day window for substitution and withdrawal of candidates.
Justice Omotosho held that INEC’s timetable reduced the timeframe allowed by law for political parties, thereby acting “ultra vires” to that extent.
He further declared that Section 29(1) of the Electoral Act requires political parties to submit their candidates’ names at least 120 days before an election, and that any timetable inconsistent with this provision is invalid.
The court consequently ordered INEC to amend its 2027 election timetable to comply strictly with the provisions of Sections 29(1) and 31 of the Electoral Act 2026.
Justice Omotosho also dismissed INEC’s argument that the suit was premature, ruling that it was validly instituted following the commission’s March 27 press statement.
He concluded that while INEC retains the authority to issue and adjust election timetables, such powers must be exercised within the limits of the law.
Happy
0 %
Sad
0 %
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
0 %
Surprise
0 %
0
0