Clearing the Fog on the Electoral Act 2026, INEC’s Timetable and Schedule of Activities for the 2027 Elections

This article by Festus Okoye examines several court cases brought by political parties, SDP, NNPP and Youth Party, the pronouncements of the courts on the issues arising in these cases, such as the Election Timetable and Schedule of Activities for the 2027 general elections, the attempt by INEC to abridge the timeframe of certain activities in its Guidelines such as submission of political party membership registers, the controversies arising therefrom, the impact of the Electoral Act 2026 on these issues, and decisions of the Supreme Court related to some of these matters

Introduction 

The controversy surrounding INEC’s Timetable and Schedule of Activities and its place in Nigeria’s hierarchy of laws, is unfortunate and unnecessary. It is unnecessary because, there is a precedent to guide all stakeholders in the electoral process. It is also unnecessary because the Supreme Court of Nigeria, the highest Court in the land, was called upon in 2023 to decide on a similar issue, and the electoral management body should have been guided by the Supreme Court’s decision when drafting the Timetable and Schedule of Activities for the 2027 general election. 

Doing so is not a sign of weakness, because the previous Commission faced the same challenge, insisted on the sanctity and inviolability of its Timetable and Schedule of Activities, and ultimately bowed to the Supreme Court’s decision. Refusing to obey and abide by the judgement of the Supreme Court and the Federal High Court in suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/517/2026 has political, financial, security, constitutional, and statutory implications. 

It is unfortunate because, it tends to distract the electoral management body from focusing on the conduct and management of the 2027 general elections and Nigeria’s off-cycle elections. Challenging the Federal High Court’s decision in the Court of Appeal, may not serve any useful purpose. While the Commission has the constitutional and statutory right to challenge the decision, it must comply with the decision and work within its framework and parameters, so that if the Court of Appeal, and maybe the Supreme Court, affirms the decision, it can still manoeuvre and do little or no harm to the aspects of the Timetable and Schedule of Activities, ultimately to the due and constitutional conduct of the election. 

Conversely, if it refuses to obey the Court’s orders, and one innocuous party insists on the sanctity and superiority of the Electoral Act, 2026, over the Timetable and Schedule of Activities, and the Commission refuses to collect its Membership Register and the candidates’ nomination form, an innocuous pre-election matter by such a party may create a constitutional crisis and throw the electoral process off balance. 

It is also unfortunate because, the Judiciary will be dragged into a needless controversy, and social media manipulators, emergency Lawyers, and analysts will begin chasing clout and offering their own interpretations of the Courts’ judgements, thereby creating confusion and finding contradictions where none exist. 

SDP v INEC

That is the fate of Suit No:/ABJ/CS/720/2026 between the Social Democratic Party and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), delivered on Tuesday, 26th May, 2026, based on an Originating Summons filed on 9th April 2026.

What are the issues in controversy? The first concerns the constitutional and statutory powers of INEC, to issue the timetable and Schedule of Activities for the 2027 general election. The second concerns the hierarchy and place of the Timetable and Schedule of Activities, within Nigeria’s legal matrix. The third concerns whether there are precedents to guide the Commission and political parties on the issues in controversy, and the fourth concerns the likely impact of those issues on the 2027 general election. 

Election Timetable 

INEC waited for the National Assembly to pass the Electoral Act Repeal and Re-enactment Bill 2026. When it became clear that the delay might affect its constitutional and statutory powers to release the Timetable and Schedule of Activities 360 days before the election, it acted under Section 29 of the Electoral Act, 2022, and released them for the 2027 general election. 

The Commission fixed Saturday, 20th February, 2027, for the Presidential and National Assembly elections, and Saturday, 6th March 2027, for the Governorship and State Houses of Assembly elections. 

Following the repeal of the Electoral Act, 2022, and the re-enactment of the Electoral Act, 2026, the Commission adjusted its Timetable and Schedule of Activities and set the Presidential and National Assembly Elections for 16th January, 2027, and the Governorship and State Houses of Assembly Elections for Saturday, 6th February 2027. 

The Commission fixed the Conduct of party Primaries and the resolution of disputes to commence on 23rd April 2026 and end on 30th May 2026, while Presidential and National Assembly Campaigns will commence on 19th August 2026. Governorship and State Assembly Campaigns will commence on 9th September 2026.  

In the Timetable and Schedule of Activities, political parties must submit their register of membership to the Commission between 1 April 2026 and 21 April 2026. The submission of Nomination Forms for Presidential and National Assembly Elections will commence on 27 June, 2026 and end on 11 July, 2026, while that for Governorship and State Assembly Elections will commence on 18 July 2026 and end on 8 August 2026. 

Publication of Personal Particulars of candidates by the Commission for Presidential and National Assembly Elections will take place on 1st August, 2026, and that of Governorship and State Assembly Elections on 29th August, 2026. 

The last day for Political Parties to withdraw candidates or replace withdrawn candidates is 22nd August, 2026 for the Presidential and National Assembly Elections, and 19th September 2026 for the Governorship and State Assembly Elections. The final list of nominated candidates will be published on 12th September, 2026 for the Presidential and National Assembly Elections, and on 10th October 2026 for the Governorship and State Assembly Elections. 

The last day for Political Parties’ campaigns for Presidential and National Assembly Elections is 14th January, 2027, and for Governorship and State Assembly Elections is 4th February, 2027. 

However, on Friday, 27th March 2026, the Commission issued a statement that, at its meeting with political parties on Tuesday, 24th March, 2026, concerns were raised about the timeline for submitting the Political Parties Register of Members under the Revised Timetable and Schedule of Activities for the 2027 General Election, which had originally been set between 1st April, 2026 and 21st April, 2026. 

At the meeting, the Commission agreed to adjust the submission period for political parties’ registers of members to align with the Electoral Act, 2026. It therefore informed political parties that they are free to set the dates for their primaries within the approved period from 23rd April, 2026 to 30th May, 2026. It also extended the submission deadline for political parties’ registers of members from 21st April, 2026 to 10th May, 2026, as originally set out in the revised Timetable. 

What, then, is the challenge, given that the Commission stated that the Timetable and Schedule of Activities it released are in conformity with the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), and the Electoral Act, 2026?

In the First Alteration Act (2010), the National Assembly amended Section 228 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), and provided that the National Assembly may, by law, lay down guidelines and rules to ensure internal democracy within political parties, including making laws for the conduct of party primaries, party congresses and party conventions; and confer on INEC  such powers as may appear to the National Assembly to be necessary or desirable for the purpose of enabling the Commission more effectively to ensure that political parties observe the practices of internal democracy, including the fair and transparent conduct of party primaries, party congresses and party conventions. 

Under the powers set out above, the National Assembly, in Section 148 of the Electoral Act 2022, empowered the Commission to issue regulations, guidelines, or manuals to give effect to the provisions of the Act and its Administration. The same provision is repeated in Section 151 of the Electoral Act 2026. 

Youth Party Case

On the 11th day of March, 2026, the Youth Party filed an Originating Summons against INEC, seeking a cluster of Declarations and Orders and on Wednesday, the 20th day of May 2026, Hon. Justice M.G. Umar of the Federal High Court granted most of the declaratory reliefs and orders as follows:

1. A declaration is hereby made that upon consideration and interpretation of Sections 29, 82 and 84 (1) of the Electoral Act 2026, the powers of the Defendant to receive notice of primaries and the personal particulars of candidates, and its duty to attend, observe and monitor such primaries does not extend to fixing or prescribing the timetable which political parties may conduct their primaries for the purpose of nominating candidates for the 2027 general elections.

2. A declaration is hereby made that, having regard to Section 29 (1) of the Electoral Act 2026, which requires political parties to submit the personal particulars of their candidates not later than 120 days before an election, the Defendant cannot lawfully abridge or shorten that statutory period by prescribing a shorter time frame in its 2027 election timetable.

3. A declaration is hereby made that, having regard to 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, the Defendant cannot lawfully abridge or limit that statutory period by fixing an earlier deadline for the withdrawal and replacement of candidates in its 2027 election timetable.

4. A declaration is made that, having regard to Section 32 of the Electoral Act, 2026, the Defendant does not possess the statutory powers to publish the final list of candidates for the 2027 general election before the 60-day period prescribed by law.

5. A declaration is made that, upon a 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 election, for the campaign to end 2 days before the election.

6. A declaration is made that, upon a proper interpretation of Section 33 of the Electoral Act, 2026, the time frame prescribed by the Defendant for the submission of membership registers for the conduct of primaries is NOT applicable to the primary election conducted for the purpose of replacing withdrawn candidates.

Hon. Justice M.G. Umar of the Federal High Court acknowledged the powers of INEC to issue regulations, guidelines, and Manuals. In the judgement he stated thus: ‘It is to be noted that it is within the power of the Defendant’s (INEC) statutory function to organise the 2027 general election, which gave rise to the Revised Timetable and Schedule of Activities for 2027 General Elections, to wit exhibit 1 attached to the plaintiff’s affidavit in support. The enabling Act of the Defendant confers on the Defendant discretion and administrative powers to issue the said Exhibit 1.’

In Suit No:/ABJ/CS/720/2026 between the Social Democratic Party and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), delivered on Tuesday, 26th May 2026, based on an Originating Summons filed on 9th April, 2026, the Court also held that the ‘timetable for the conduct of the 2027 General Election issued by the Defendant is valid and legally issued, stating the timeframe within which political parties are to hold their primaries and the timeframe for the submission of membership registers of political parties’.

The key issue is not whether INEC has the constitutional or statutory powers or discretion to issue a timetable and schedule of activities. The question is whether it can, in its timetable and schedule of activities, abridge or violate the timelines provided in the Constitution and the Electoral Act, 2026. 

NNPP Case 

Unfortunately, the Commission has travelled this route up to the Supreme Court. Ahead of the 2023 general election, the New Nigeria Peoples Party (NNPP) filed an Originating Summons before the Federal High Court seeking various declaratory reliefs, including an order directing INEC to accept and publish the names of the NNPP candidates for the 2023 general elections, replacing the names of candidates already forwarded and submitted, in place of candidates who voluntarily withdrew their candidature and resigned their membership of the Party.

The Party communicated its voluntary withdrawal of some candidates to INEC and gave notice of its intention to hold a fresh primary election, as required by law. INEC refused, on the grounds that the time to hold a fresh election, as stipulated in the Timetable and Schedule of Activities for the 2023 general election, had expired, and that Section 33 of the Electoral Act, 2022, which provides 90 days for withdrawal and substitution, was no longer available to the Party. 

On this basis, the Party approached the Federal High Court and sought a declaration that, under Sections 29(1), 31 and 33 of the Electoral Act, 2022, INEC lacks constitutional or statutory authority to prevent the NNPP from replacing its candidates who voluntarily withdrew their candidature for the 2023 general election. It also sought a declaration that INEC’s Timetable and Schedule of Activities for the 2023 General Election does not supersede the Electoral Act, 2022. Finally, it sought a declaration that, by virtue of Sections 65(2)(b), 106(d), 177(c) and 187(1) & (2) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), INEC cannot recognise as NNPP candidates for the 2023 general election those who have withdrawn their membership of the NNPP. 

Thereafter, the party sought an order directing the INEC to allow the NNPP to submit the names of all candidates it had replaced, as well as those who had voluntarily withdrawn their candidature, for the 2023 general election. It also sought an order directing the INEC to accept and publish the names of all candidates forwarded by the NNPP as replacements for NNPP candidates in the 2023 elections. The Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal agreed with the party’s contention and entered judgment in its favour. INEC appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court. 

Supreme Court Decisions

The Supreme Court in Independent National Electoral Commission v. New Nigeria Peoples Party (2023) 12 NWLR, Part 189, 431 held that, under Sections 31 and 33 of the Electoral Act, 2022, and given that the application or notice for substitution of NNPP candidates was made to INEC on 31/8/2022, there were well over 90 days to the Presidential or Governorship election. For INEC to jettison or refuse to accede to the substitution request made to it by the NNPP in accordance with the Electoral Act, 2022, in favour of its timetable and schedule is to contemptuously undermine the law to which it is subject. 

The Court noted that the Electoral Act binds both INEC and the NNPP, and neither has the power to do whatever it wants. For as much as the Electoral Act or the Constitution has empowered INEC to make and schedule its own timetable for the general elections, it must be done subject to and in consonance with the Electoral Act, 2022, and not contrary to, different from, or in defiance of it.

The Supreme Court further held that INEC’s directives or Guidelines on the submission of names of candidates sponsored by political parties in an election cannot override the provisions of the Electoral Act and the 1999 Constitution (as amended), and that there is nothing in Section 31 of the Act that makes its operation subject to any other statute or to any INEC guideline or timetable.

The Supreme Court conceded that INEC has the power under Section 148 of the Electoral Act, 2022, to issue Regulations or Guidelines to give effect to its provisions. “The Section provides: “The Commission may, subject to the provisions of this Act, issue regulations, guidelines or manuals for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of this Act and for its administration.” The above provision is unambiguous and clearly states that Guidelines, Regulations and Manuals to be issued by the Appellant are subject to the Electoral Act, and that the purpose of the Regulations, Guidelines and/or Manuals is to give effect to the Electoral Act. A Timetable and Schedule of Activities of the Appellant, which is made pursuant to the Electoral Act, must comply with the timelines contained in the Electoral Act, 2022. Being subordinate legislation, any inconsistency created by it must be resolved in favour of the substantive law.” 

Therefore, in any conflict between a provision of substantive legislation and a provision of subordinate legislation, the provision of the substantive legislation prevails. This is because the Act is the principal law and the statute that authorises the Regulations. The Act is the pillar on which the Regulations lean and can never be superseded or overridden. If there is any inconsistency, the Regulations will give way to the Act. 

A simple count of the relevant date relative to the general election date is required by the electoral management body and the political parties. The judgement obtained by the Youth Party may be set aside on jurisdictional grounds or on grounds of locus standi, but it does not prevent the electoral management body from complying with the law or the political parties from complying with the Electoral Act and the Constitution. 

It is also axiomatic that the Timetable and Schedule of Activities issued by the Commission must comply with the Electoral Act and the Constitution. The Timetable, Regulations and manuals are issued pursuant to the powers conferred on the Commission and derivable from the statute and the Constitution. The Electoral Act, 2026, and the Constitution cannot bow to the Commission’s Timetable and Schedule of Activities. 

Conclusion

The Commission should act in the interests of Nigerian democracy and our electoral process, by reviewing past judgements on electoral timelines and the Timetable and Schedule of Activities, and by aligning them with the law. Doing so is not a sign of weakness, but an abiding faith in the electoral process and Nigerian democracy. 

Festus Okoye, Lawyer, former INEC National Commissioner