A Federal High Court judgment nullifying aspects of INEC’s 2027 election timetable has reopened the door for defections, fresh alliances and late candidate substitutions. The ruling held that INEC cannot shorten statutory timelines in the Electoral Act. Analysts say parties may now reopen membership registers as politicians seek alternative platforms unless INEC appeals and obtains a stay of execution, write Deputy News Editor JOSEPH JIBUEZE and TONY AKOWE.

The judgment of the Federal High Court in Abuja nullifying aspects of the Independent National Electoral Commission’s (INEC) Revised Timetable and Schedule of Activities for the 2027 general elections may prove to be one of the most politically consequential electoral verdicts ahead of the next election cycle.

Beyond the legal implications, the decision has the potential to reshape party calculations, reopen the door to defections and coalition negotiations, and alter the balance between INEC’s administrative powers and statutory rights guaranteed under the Electoral Act 2026.

Justice Mohammad Umar, in the May 20 judgment delivered in suit FHC/ABJ/CS/517/2026 filed by the Youth Party (YP), ruled that several timelines fixed by INEC were inconsistent with the Electoral Act 2026 and therefore null and void.

The court held that INEC lacked the powers to abridge timelines already guaranteed by statute, particularly in relation to party primaries, submission of candidates’ particulars, withdrawal and substitution of candidates, publication of final candidate lists and campaign periods.

The court specifically declared that political parties are entitled under Section 29(1) of the Electoral Act to submit the personal particulars of candidates up to 120 days before an election and that INEC cannot lawfully shorten that period through administrative directives.

Justice Umar also ruled that political parties retain the statutory right under Section 31 of the Electoral Act to withdraw and replace candidates up to 90 days before elections, adding that INEC cannot impose earlier deadlines through its timetable.

In another significant pronouncement, the court held that INEC cannot publish the final list of candidates earlier than the 60 days prescribed by law.

It also ruled that the commission lacks the statutory authority to end campaigns two days before elections.

Perhaps more politically explosive was the court’s interpretation regarding membership registers for party primaries.

Justice Umar held that timelines prescribed by INEC for submission of party membership registers do not apply where parties are replacing candidates who withdrew from elections.

The ruling implies that political parties may still admit fresh members and regularise new defectors within the broader statutory windows allowed under the Electoral Act.

The verdict has now triggered fresh debates within political circles over whether the judgment effectively reopens the political transfer market ahead of 2027.

Before the ruling, INEC’s timetable had largely been interpreted as an attempt to shut the door early against endless defections and opportunistic coalition building.

Under the commission’s compressed deadlines, politicians who lost primaries in one party would have had little or no room to defect elsewhere and still secure tickets before statutory deadlines elapsed.

But the judgment appears to have fundamentally altered those calculations.

Already, some political parties are quietly positioning to harvest aggrieved aspirants who lost governorship, National Assembly and state assembly tickets during the recently concluded primaries, particularly within the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC).

Several aspirants who initially appeared resigned to defeat are now reconsidering their options following the court’s decision.

The restored statutory windows effectively mean that politicians who lose primaries may still have enough time to defect to rival parties, negotiate tickets and regularise their membership status before the constitutional deadlines expire.

This possibility has heightened coalition talks and strategic alignments across the political spectrum.

Some opposition parties are believed to be reviewing plans to reopen their membership registers to accommodate intending defectors who may now seek alternative platforms after losing primaries in their original parties.

INEC’s dilemma

The Electoral Act itself became central to the legal dispute.

The court held that while INEC possesses constitutional authority to regulate elections, such powers cannot override express provisions of the Electoral Act.

The judgment therefore reaffirmed the principle that subsidiary regulations, guidelines and administrative directives cannot supersede an Act of the National Assembly.

This has now placed INEC in a difficult position.

On the one hand, the commission has a constitutional responsibility to organise elections and ensure operational efficiency.

On the other hand, the court has ruled that parts of its timetable conflict with statutory provisions.

The dilemma is compounded by the fact that some of the activities affected by the judgment have already been concluded.

For example, the timetable had fixed May 10, 2026, as the deadline for political parties to submit their membership registers to the commission.

Most parties complied with that directive, and many had already concluded or substantially progressed in their primaries before the judgment was delivered.

Available reports indicate that several political parties have decided to continue with their primaries despite the ruling because of uncertainty over whether the judgment will survive on appeal.

INEC has appealed the judgment.

Officials of the commission were quoted as saying that allowing the verdict to stand without challenge could substantially disrupt preparations for the 2027 elections.

Senior lawyers’ views

Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Monday Ubani, in an analysis of the judgment, argued that Justice Umar’s reasoning appears firmly rooted in established constitutional principles regarding statutory supremacy.

Ubani stated: “Truth be told, this decision appears legally authoritative when examined against the supremacy of statutory provisions over administrative guidelines.

“Section 29(1) of the Electoral Act, 2026 is explicit and mandatory.

“Once the National Assembly has fixed a timeline for submission of candidates’ particulars, INEC, being a statutory creation, cannot shorten that period through regulations or administrative directives.”

According to him, INEC’s regulations and guidelines remain subordinate instruments which cannot override the parent statute.

“Administrative guidelines must derive validity from the parent statute and cannot contradict or override it.

“This principle has long been settled in Nigerian jurisprudence: where there is a conflict between a statute and subsidiary legislation or administrative action, the statute prevails,” Ubani said.

The senior lawyer acknowledged that INEC’s intentions may have been driven by legitimate administrative concerns.

“INEC may have been motivated to create electoral stability and administrative convenience by that guideline,” he said.

Ubani added that the commission probably intended “to stabilise party memberships early enough to prevent last-minute defections, confusion in primaries, and manipulation of candidate lists.”

He further argued that early submission of membership registers would have allowed INEC enough time “to verify party memberships and prepare for primaries.”

However, he maintained that administrative convenience cannot supersede rights expressly granted by statute.

He said: “INEC no doubt possesses powers under the Constitution and Electoral Act to issue regulations, guidelines, and timetables for elections. However, such powers are limited by the doctrine of ultra vires.

“Once INEC issues a guideline inconsistent with the Electoral Act, that guideline becomes null and void to the extent of the inconsistency.”

Ubani stressed that the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that subsidiary legislation cannot amend, vary or diminish provisions of a principal statute.

He argued: “Therefore, if Section 29 grants political parties until 120 days before election to submit candidates’ particulars, INEC cannot indirectly defeat that provision by creating an earlier mandatory membership deadline that effectively forecloses participation.”

Perhaps more importantly, Ubani directly linked the judgment to the likelihood of renewed defections and political realignments.

“The judgment effectively reopens the political transfer window.

“Politicians dissatisfied with outcomes in their present parties now have additional time to defect and secure nominations elsewhere.

“This could trigger unprecedented political realignments before the 2027 elections.”

That observation appears increasingly relevant given the political mood across parties.

Banire: verdict in line with Electoral Act

Lawyers have largely said the judgment was a win for the rule of law, because INEC cannot impose timetable deadlines that conflict with the Electoral Act.

Some also said it may reopen defection and substitution opportunities for politicians ahead of the 2027 polls.

They also said political parties now have more room to manage primaries, candidate substitutions, and membership-register deadlines in line with the Electoral Act rather than INEC’s shorter timetable.

They added that the decision could strengthen internal democracy and make the 2027 election process more credible if INEC complies or revises its schedule transparently.

Dr Muiz Banire (SAN), a former legal adviser of the APC, lauded Justice Umar’s verdict.

“It is a welcome development,” he told The Nation.

The decision supports his argument that the political realignments remain possible.

He said: “Equally significant is the import of Section 29 of the Electoral Act concerning the timeframe within which political parties are expected to submit the names of their candidates to INEC.

“By the express provisions of the section, political parties have up till 120 days before the conduct of the election to submit their list of candidates to the Commission.

The implication of this provision is quite revealing. It means that political parties are legally entitled to conduct their nomination processes at any time before the expiration of the statutory period prescribed by the Act.

“Consequently, INEC may not possess the legal authority to compel political parties to conduct their primaries or nomination processes much earlier than the period contemplated by the statute if such parties are unwilling to do so.

“In that regard, any purported guideline or regulation issued by INEC seeking to abridge or alter the timeline expressly granted by the Electoral Act may well be ultra vires the powers of the Commission.

“Political parties, in such circumstances, would be within their legal rights either to ignore such directives or to challenge them in court.

“It is elementary law that where there exists a conflict between the provisions of a statute and a subsidiary legislation, such as regulations or guidelines, it is the principal legislation that must prevail.

“Applying this principle to the scenario under discourse, it follows that political parties may lawfully refuse to conduct their nomination processes within the earlier timelines prescribed administratively by INEC and may equally delay the submission of their candidates’ names until the maturity of the period expressly stipulated by the Electoral Act itself.”

Legal hurdle

Still, analysts believe INEC faces a difficult legal hurdle because the plain wording of the Electoral Act appears to favour the trial court’s interpretation.

As noted by legal experts, although the Supreme Court has consistently affirmed INEC’s constitutional authority to issue regulations and guidelines for elections, the apex court has also repeatedly held that such powers must not conflict with provisions of the Constitution or Electoral Act.

In several decisions, the Supreme Court affirmed that INEC possesses discretion in organising elections and fixing timetables.

One such decision came in 2011 when the apex court upheld the commission’s powers to determine election timetables in a suit filed by the National Democratic Party ahead of the general elections.

However, the distinction now is that Justice Umar’s judgment did not deny INEC’s constitutional authority to issue timetables.

Rather, the court held that the commission cannot use administrative powers to abridge statutory timelines expressly created by law.

That distinction may become central at the appellate stage.

Some analysts fear a return to the chaotic pre-election scenarios witnessed in previous election cycles, where aspirants moved across multiple parties within short periods in search of viable tickets.

Such movements often generate parallel candidacies, internal party disputes and prolonged litigation.

INEC is expected to rely heavily on these practical concerns in its appeal.

The commission may argue that election timetables are not merely legal documents but operational instruments involving procurement, logistics, security coordination, litigation management and voter education.

INEC could further contend that its revised timetable was intended to discourage serial defections and stabilise the electoral calendar early enough for effective planning.

‘Judgment welcome’

Eminent legal scholar Dr Wahab Shittu (SAN) described the verdict as one of the most consequential pre-election decisions in Nigeria’s recent constitutional history.

According to him, it is a firm judicial reminder that even a constitutionally created body such as INEC must operate strictly within the confines of the Electoral Act 2022 and the 1999 Constitution.

He said: “Justice Umar correctly applied the settled principle of statutory interpretation that where a statute prescribes the manner in which an act is to be done, it must be done in that manner or not at all. INEC, being a statutory and constitutional body, cannot, by administrative action, alter or diminish rights already created by legislation. The court’s reliance on the doctrine of ultra vires was therefore entirely appropriate.

“Of particular importance is the court’s treatment of legitimate expectation. Political parties and aspirants had already structured their internal democratic processes around the original timetable published by INEC.

“Once the Commission operationalised those timelines in accordance with the Electoral Act, political actors were entitled to expect that the statutory framework would not be arbitrarily altered to their disadvantage.

“The court was therefore right to hold that INEC could not subsequently retreat from timelines anchored on mandatory statutory provisions.

“The constitutional dimension of the judgment is equally significant. Democracy is not merely about conducting elections; it is about conducting them in accordance with the rule of law.

“By compressing timelines for party primaries and candidate emergence, INEC risked undermining the internal democratic processes of political parties recognised under Sections 221 and 222 of the Constitution. The judgment reinforces the principle that electoral fairness begins long before polling day.

“The orders made by the court were measured and pragmatic. The court nullified only those portions of the revised timetable that violated statutory timelines and directed INEC to publish a compliant timetable. Importantly, the court declined to suspend the entire electoral process, thereby balancing legality with institutional stability and public interest.

“This decision sends a powerful message to regulatory institutions in Nigeria. Administrative convenience cannot supersede statutory command.

“The Electoral Act is not a set of optional guidelines but a binding law. INEC’s powers, though extensive, are not absolute. Thus, I see the ruling as a welcome development.”

Competing concerns

For now, the political class is already adjusting to the new reality created by the judgment.

Coalition discussions that appeared dormant are gradually resurfacing.

Aggrieved aspirants are reopening contacts with rival parties.

Smaller parties see opportunities to attract stronger candidates shut out of dominant platforms.

Established parties are reviewing internal strategies in anticipation of late defections.

Perhaps the most immediate practical question is whether political parties may now reopen their membership registers.

Many analysts believe the answer is yes, particularly in light of the court’s interpretation regarding substituted candidates and membership timelines.

Since the Electoral Act requires candidates to emerge from party processes and be valid members of the sponsoring party, parties may now seek to regularise fresh defectors within the broader statutory windows restored by the court.

That possibility alone could significantly alter political calculations across the country in the months ahead.

Critics, however, warn that excessively rigid judicial interpretations may undermine electoral stability and complicate election management.

Ubani acknowledged these competing concerns in his analysis.

“While these intentions from my assumptions appear reasonable from an administrative standpoint, administrative convenience cannot override statutory rights created by legislation,” he said.

He nevertheless described the ruling as “a strong judicial reminder that electoral management bodies, no matter how powerful, must operate strictly within the boundaries established by the Constitution and the Electoral Act.”

The SAN also predicted that the matter may eventually reach the Supreme Court for definitive interpretation.

“Given the national importance of this judgment, the matter may proceed to the Court of Appeal and possibly the Supreme Court for definitive interpretation of the scope of INEC’s regulatory authority under the Electoral Act,” he said.

Whether the verdict survives on appeal or not, its immediate effect is already visible: the political field ahead of 2027 has suddenly become more fluid, more uncertain and potentially more combustible.

And those who decide to take a political plunge may do so on solid legal grounds. (The Nation)

Update news