22/05/2026
𝗔𝗗𝗠𝗜𝗡𝗜𝗦𝗧𝗥𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗩𝗘 𝗔𝗚𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗜𝗘𝗦 𝗜𝗡 𝗡𝗜𝗚𝗘𝗥𝗜𝗔 𝗖𝗔𝗡𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗢𝗩𝗘𝗥𝗥𝗜𝗗𝗘 𝗦𝗧𝗔𝗧𝗨𝗧𝗢𝗥𝗬 𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗩𝗜𝗦𝗜𝗢𝗡𝗦
The judgment of the Federal High Court, Abuja, delivered by Justice M.G. Umar yesterday, may have altered the political calculations ahead of the 2027 general elections in one sweeping stroke. By nullifying key aspects of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC)’s revised timetable and guidelines, the Court has once again reaffirmed a timeless constitutional principle: administrative agencies cannot override statutory provisions.
At the heart of the controversy was INEC’s directive compelling political parties to submit their membership registers and candidates’ particulars far earlier than the timelines contemplated under the Electoral Act, 2026. Political parties, particularly the Youth Party, challenged the legality of the directive, arguing that INEC lacked the statutory powers to abridge timelines expressly created by the National Assembly.
Justice Umar agreed.
In a decision already stirring intense political and legal debate across Nigeria, the Court held that INEC cannot lawfully shorten statutory periods fixed by the Electoral Act. The ruling consequently granted political parties until September 2026 to submit updated membership registers and other relevant particulars for the 2027 elections.
The Court relied heavily on the provisions of Sections 29, 31, 32, 82, 84(1), and 98 of the Electoral Act, 2026.
Section 29(1) of the Electoral Act specifically provides that political parties shall submit the personal particulars of their candidates “not later than 120 days before the date appointed for a general election.” The Court held that once the legislature has fixed a statutory timeline, INEC cannot, by administrative guidelines or timetable, reduce or alter it.
Similarly, Section 31 of the Act permits withdrawal and substitution of candidates up to 90 days before an election, while Section 32 regulates publication of the final list of candidates. Justice Umar ruled that INEC equally lacked authority to impose earlier deadlines inconsistent with those statutory windows.
Even more significantly, the Court reportedly nullified INEC’s attempt to dictate the timeline for party primaries and campaign periods, declaring that the Commission’s powers to monitor and receive notices of primaries do not extend to controlling when political parties must conduct those primaries.
The legal foundation of the judgment is firmly rooted in the doctrine of supremacy of statute over subsidiary legislation or administrative action. In Nigerian jurisprudence, it is settled law that where a statute expressly provides for a procedure or timeline, no administrative authority may vary it.
The Supreme Court in A.G. Bendel State v. A.G. Federation reaffirmed that subsidiary regulations must derive validity from their enabling statute and cannot contradict the parent law. Likewise, in INEC v. Musa, the apex court emphasized that INEC, though constitutionally empowered, must act strictly within the confines of powers granted by the Constitution and electoral laws.
The principle was further reinforced in Governor of Lagos State v. Ojukwu, where the Supreme Court famously stressed that every authority and institution in Nigeria must operate under the rule of law and not according to arbitrary discretion.
Thus, Justice Umar’s decision is not merely about election dates or procedural timelines; it is fundamentally about constitutional order, legislative supremacy, and the limits of administrative powers.
Politically, the implications are enormous.
The judgment effectively reopens the political space for defections, coalition-building, substitution of candidates, and strategic realignments ahead of 2027. Politicians who lost party primaries may now find alternative platforms within the legally protected timeframe recognized by the Electoral Act. This explains why many opposition figures and political stakeholders have welcomed the decision as a restoration of democratic flexibility.
Critics, however, fear that the judgment could disrupt INEC’s preparations and create uncertainty in the electoral process. Reports indicate that the Commission may review the judgment and possibly challenge it on appeal.
Yet, beyond politics, one message stands unmistakably clear from the courtroom in Abuja yesterday: no guideline, no timetable, and no administrative circular can rise above the authority of an Act of the National Assembly.
That is the essence of the rule of law.
