Lawyers Say Court Nullification of INEC Timetable Opens Defection Opportunity

*Insist verdict stands until vacated on appeal 

*INEC moves to appeal judgement, declares it may disrupt election planning, logistics 

*ADC: Judgement won’t affect our planned presidential primary election

Chuks Okocha and Alex Enumah in Abuja

Reactions have continued to trail Thursday’s judgment of a Federal High Court, which nullified the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC’s) Revised Timetable and Schedule of Activities for the 2027 General Election.
Some Senior lawyers yesterday said the judgement could trigger a fresh wave of political defections ahead of the 2027 elections by reopening opportunities for aspirants dissatisfied with their parties’ primary processes.

This comes as the African Democratic Congress (ADC) stated that the judgement won’t affect the party’s planned presidential primary election.
Also yesterday, a faction of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the African Action Congress (AAC) welcomed the judgment.

Justice Mohammed Umar, in the judgment, held that the time-frame “imposed” by INEC on political parties to conduct their primaries, submit, withdraw and replace names and particulars of their candidates for the 2027 general elections, “is inconsistent with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026”, and subsequently set aside the guidelines.
In their reactions, some Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) and other lawyers commended the judgement for enhancing the rule of law as well as democracy in the country.

The lawyers who acknowledged INEC’s rights to make regulations and guidelines for the smooth conduct of elections in the country, however, stressed that such regulations and guidelines must be in tandem with the Electoral Act.
Besides, they pointed out that with the nullification of the guidelines aspirants who lost in party primaries due to absence of level playing ground or perceived manipulation, now have the opportunity to test their popularity and strength in another party.

Reacting to the judgment, Magaji Mato, SAN, who observed that the judgment reaffirmed constitutional supremacy over administrative discretion, clarified that the judgment of the court is binding not only on INEC but on all political actors in the country.
Speaking in an interview on ARISE News Channel, Mato explained that the court’s decision was not limited to the parties before it but has a general effect on the electoral process.

“This judanything wrong in that kind of decision. It might be an inconvenient judgment to INEC, probably because of the hectic task it faces in conducting elections nationwide. But the law is the law, and it must be obeyed. It is only in obedience to the law that the country will move forward”, he said.

Also speaking, another senior lawyer, Mr. Dayo Akinlaja, SAN, who saw the judgment as good for the development of the nation’s democracy, was of the position that any regulations made against the provisions of the laws are bound to be nullified by the courts.
He stressed that the judgment of the Federal High Court did not in any way weaken the powers of the electoral umpire to make regulations for the smooth conduct of elections, but that such regulations and guidelines must be in tandem with the law.

“From the snippets I have gathered, the timetable was challenged on alleged grounds of inconsistencies with relevant provisions of the Electoral Act. If that is the case, I fail to see the ensuing judgment as weakening the powers of INEC in any way or form.
“INEC as a body is bound by the provisions of the Electoral Act. Obviously enough, INEC lacks the power to make regulations, guidelines or timetable inconsistent with the provisions of the Electoral Act.

“If it is established that the instant timetable is in conflict with the provisions of the Electoral Act, it is only proper and appropriate for the Court to nullify the timetable. That is the singular way to strengthen our democracy.
Akinlaja opined  that the judgment would enhance the internal democracy of political parties as well as the 2027 polls.
According to him, following the nullification of the revised timetable, political parties now have the benefit of ample time to prepare for the upcoming elections.

“And, once there is no let or hindrance in the way of preparing for the 2027 polls, the polls stand to be more successful, credible and impactful”, he added.
Also reacting on his X handle, another lawyer, Ekene Aninze, who hailed the judgment of the Federal High Court, pointed out that INEC could not arrogate to itself powers beyond what the law expressly provided by issuing guidelines that practically controlled and strangled political parties.
Speaking on the implications of the judgment Aninze, observed that the transfer window across political parties has effectively reopened for politicians who may wish to dump their parties and move elsewhere.

“Secondly, no political party is under any immediate pressure or compulsion to submit the names or particulars of its candidates to INEC until 120 days before the election.
“Thirdly, political parties can still substitute the names of their candidates before 90 days to the election, and INEC will be legally bound to accept such substitutions.
“As it stands today, every wise politician who has been disqualified is expected to immediately take advantage of this judgment while INEC is yet to appeal it”, he said.

Justice Umar had, in his judgment in the suit filed by the Youth Party against INEC, held that INEC cannot lawfully abridge or limit the statutory period for parties to submit their membership register by prescribing a shorter timeframe in its 2027 election timetable.
The judge, while referencing Section 31 of the Electoral Act, 2026, which permits political parties to withdraw and substitute candidates not later than 90 days before the conduct of an election, also held that INEC lacked the powers to abridge or limit that statutory period by fixing an earlier deadline for the withdrawal and replacement of candidates in its 2027 election timetable.

Justice Umar in addition, held that by provisions of Section 32 of the Electoral Act, 2026, INEC does not possess the statutory power to publish the final list of candidates for the 2027 general election before the 60-day minimum period prescribed by law.
“A Declaration is made that upon the proper construction of Section 98 of the Electoral Act, 2026, the defendant does not possess the statutory authority to fix in its timetable for the 2027 general elections for campaign to end 2 days before the elections.
“A Declaration is made that upon the proper interpretation to Section 33 of the Electoral Act, 2026, the time frame prescribed by the Defendant for submission of membership registers for the conduct of primary elections is NOT applicable to primary elections conducted for the purpose of replacing withdrawn candidates.”

Meanwhile, the ADC has said the judgement won’t affect its planned presidential primary election.
In an interview with THISDAY, the National Publicity Secretary of ADC, Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi, said the order of the Federal High Court is a welcome development, but our planned presidential primary election will go ahead as planned.
”On the appointed date, our presidential primary election will be held. We don’t want to take further chances, Abdullahi stated.

Barring any further changes, the presidential primary election of the ADC will take place among the former Vice President, Atiku Abubakar; former Governor of Rivers State, Rotimi Amaechi, and renowned economist, Mohammed Hayatudeen.
Also, reacting to the judgement, Yiaga Africa, in a statement by its Executive Director, Samson Itodo called on stakeholders to dialogue with INEC on the ways forward.

According to Itodo, ”INEC must now engage transparently with stakeholders on its next steps, whether that means filing an appeal, compliance with the judgment, or a further review of the timetable. Clear communication with political parties and citizens will be critical to sustaining confidence in the process.”

”The judgment sets aside portions of INEC’s Revised Timetable and Schedule of Activities for the 2027 General Election because the timeframes prescribed by the Commission are inconsistent with Sections 29, 31, 32, 33, and 98 of the Electoral Act 2026.

”Political parties have every right to assert their interests through the courts, especially where there is a clear perception of injustice. Judicial scrutiny of administrative action is a legitimate feature of constitutional democracy, not a threat to it.

We have consistently raised concerns about the compressed timelines introduced by last-minute amendments to the Electoral Act by the National Assembly.

”These changes shrank political space, disadvantaged certain political actors, and imposed logistical pressures on INEC. The late passage of the Electoral Act 2026, combined with the adjustment of election dates due to religious observances, created a difficult operational environment requiring careful judgment and broad stakeholder engagement.

”INEC must now engage transparently with stakeholders on its next steps, whether that means filing an appeal, compliance with the judgment, or a further review of the timetable. Clear communication with political parties and citizens will be critical to sustaining confidence in the process.

”Whatever course the Commission chooses must be guided by protecting the integrity, inclusiveness, and credibility of the 2027 elections, not administrative convenience.”, Itodo said.

Equally, more political parties continued to applaud the judgement.

A faction of the PDP, in a statement by its National Publicity Secretary, Ini Emeombong, said, “The judgment will help political parties to better organise themselves. There is a need to hurry slowly on critical democratic processes. We are certain that all political parties are gladdened by the judgment.”

Also, the AAC welcomed the judgment, describing it as victory for constitutional order and internal democracy.

In a statement by its National Publicity Secretary, Rex Elanu, the party stated that the judgment reaffirmed the autonomy of political parties in conducting their internal affairs without undue interference from INEC.

The AAC stated that the decision reinforces democratic principles and strengthens the supremacy of the constitution and the rule of law.

According to the party, the ruling serves as a reminder that political parties are independent democratic institutions that must operate based on their constitutions and not be subjected to restrictive administrative directives from INEC.