Two Judgements, One Election: Can INEC Keep 2027 on Track?

Iyobosa Uwugiaren writes that for Nigeria’s political parties preparing for 2027 general election, the recent conflicting pronouncements by the Court of Appeal create uncertainty and confusion.

Nigeria’s journey toward the 2027 general election has entered a familiar yet unsettling phase—one in which the judiciary, rather than politicians, has become the centre of electoral uncertainty.

Within days, two separate panels of the Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja delivered judgments that appear to pull the country’s electoral legal framework in different directions. One reaffirmed the Independent National Electoral Commission’s (INEC) authority to issue election guidelines and determine timelines for electoral activities. The other struck down crucial provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 governing political party membership registers and candidate nominations, declaring them inconsistent with the Constitution.

Ordinarily, such conflicting pronouncements from the same appellate court would trigger concerns about the stability of the electoral process. Political parties, election monitors, and political analysts would question the legal framework governing party primaries, lawyers would anticipate another round of litigation, and observers would worry about the possibility of delays to election preparations.

Yet INEC has remained remarkably calm. A  senior official told THISDAY last week that the judgements, though significant, do not pose any threat to preparations for the 2027 polls or the commission’s ability to conduct free, fair and credible elections.

Political analysts said the assurance reflected more than institutional confidence; it speaks to the constitutional architecture of Nigeria’s electoral system. Indeed, while individual provisions of the Electoral Act may be subjected to judicial scrutiny, the commission’s existence and powers are rooted in the constitution.

According to a senior lawyer, “Unless the constitution itself is altered, INEC retains responsibility for organising elections, maintaining the voters’ register, supervising political parties during elections, accrediting observers and announcing results. In that sense, the latest court decisions affect aspects of electoral administration rather than the commission’s core mandate.”

The first judgement, which overturned the Federal High Court’s nullification of INEC’s revised timetable for the 2027 election, the lawyer said, reinforces this constitutional position. The appellate court held that INEC acted within its lawful authority when it fixed timelines for party primaries and candidate nominations. In reaching that conclusion, the court effectively recognised that election management requires a degree of administrative discretion that should not be lightly interfered with by the judiciary.

This is an important principle and feature for any democracy. Elections are not organised overnight. They involve years of planning, procurement, recruitment of personnel, voter education, security coordination and logistical deployment across thousands of polling units across  the country. Every stage depends on carefully coordinated schedules. Without the authority to determine timelines, an election management body like INEC  would struggle to coordinate political parties, security agencies and electoral officials.

The Court of Appeal’s decision therefore strengthens INEC’s operational independence at a critical stage of preparations for the 2027 elections.

However, the second judgement in the estimation  of a legal mind presents a more complicated legal landscape. According to the lawyer, by invalidating Sections 77(5), (6) and (7), as well as Section 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026, the appellate court questioned the legal framework governing party membership registers and the nomination of candidates. True, these provisions are central to Nigeria’s electoral process because they regulate how political parties determine who qualifies to contest elections under their platforms.

Candidate’s nomination has historically been one of the weakest points in Nigeria’s democracy. Most election-related litigation begins long before voters cast their ballots. Aggrieved aspirants frequently challenge the conduct of party primaries, alleging manipulation of delegates, irregular membership registers or breaches of internal party rules. By striking down statutory provisions governing these processes, the Court of Appeal has reopened debates about the constitutional limits of legislative regulation of political parties.

For political parties preparing for 2027 poll, this creates uncertainty and confusion. If the invalidated provisions remain unenforceable, parties may need to rely more heavily on their constitutions and internal guidelines, while awaiting either Supreme Court clarification or legislative amendments.

This could result in differing interpretations across political parties, increasing the likelihood of pre-election disputes.

Yet legal uncertainty or confusion should not be mistaken for electoral paralysis. The country’s judicial system provides mechanisms for resolving conflicting decisions. The Supreme Court remains the final authority on constitutional interpretation, and its eventual pronouncement is expected to provide clarity. Until then, electoral preparations continue under the constitutional powers already vested in INEC.

This explains the commission’s insistence that the “judgements are not obstacles to conducting credible elections.” From an institutional perspective, the litigation affects specific legal provisions but does not suspend election planning. Voter registration, procurement of electoral materials, recruitment and training of ad hoc staff, deployment of technology, engagement with stakeholders and security planning will surely continue irrespective of ongoing court proceedings.

Indeed, electoral commissions across democratic societies routinely operate while legal challenges are pending. Election calendars cannot simply be suspended whenever litigation arises. Were that to happen, politically motivated lawsuits could become effective instruments for delaying elections indefinitely. The continuity of electoral administration therefore depends on institutions proceeding within the law while allowing the courts to resolve outstanding legal questions.

However, conflicting judgements expose deeper structural concerns that extend beyond the immediate dispute. Foremost among them is judicial inconsistency. Two panels of the same Court of Appeal delivering apparently contradictory decisions on electoral matters inevitably raises questions about certainty in Nigeria’s legal system. Predictability is essential in electoral jurisprudence because political actors require clear legal standards long before campaigns commence.

Where judicial decisions differ significantly, lawyers often encourage fresh litigation in the hope of obtaining favourable outcomes from different courts. This phenomenon, commonly described as forum shopping, has complicated previous election cycles and contributed to prolonged political uncertainty. If not resolved promptly, the present situation could encourage another wave of pre-election court cases.

Equally significant is the continuing tension between judicial oversight and institutional independence. Courts possess unquestionable authority to review administrative decisions for legality. At the same time, constitutional agencies such as INEC require sufficient operational flexibility to discharge their responsibilities efficiently. Excessive judicial intervention in administrative decisions could weaken electoral planning, while insufficient oversight might undermine accountability.

The appellate court’s affirmation of INEC’s discretion suggests recognition of this delicate balance. By holding that the commission acted within powers granted by law, the court acknowledged that electoral administration involves specialised technical decisions that should ordinarily remain within the competence of the election management body unless they clearly violate constitutional or statutory provisions.

The judgements also draw renewed attention to Nigeria’s political parties themselves. Internal party democracy remains one of the country’s greatest democratic challenges. Many disputes that eventually reach election tribunals originate from poorly conducted primaries rather than the general election itself. Weak membership records, disputed voters’ register, opaque nomination procedures and executive interference have repeatedly undermined confidence in political parties.

Whether or not the invalidated provisions are ultimately restored, the controversy highlights the urgent need for political parties to strengthen internal governance/process. Transparent membership registers, credible primaries and effective dispute-resolution mechanisms within parties would reduce dependence on judicial intervention and enhance public confidence in electoral outcomes.

Despite these legal developments, INEC’s confidence in the 2027 electoral process is not entirely misplaced. Credible elections depend on more than statutory interpretation. Over the past decade, technological innovations such as the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) and the INEC Result Viewing Portal (IReV) have introduced greater transparency into election management. While operational challenges remain, these reforms represent institutional improvements that are unaffected by the recent court decisions.

Equally important are logistics and administration. Timely deployment of election materials, adequate training of officials, efficient collation of results and effective coordination with security agencies remain the principal determinants of successful elections. None of these responsibilities has been diminished by the conflicting appellate judgements.

However, credibility ultimately depends on political behaviour as much as institutional performance. Electoral laws cannot by themselves eliminate vote-buying, political violence, misinformation or intimidation. Political parties, candidates and security agencies all share responsibility for ensuring that elections are peaceful and transparent. Courts can interpret the law, but democratic legitimacy is built through collective adherence to constitutional principles.

The latest judgements therefore serve as a reminder that Nigeria’s electoral process remains a work in progress. They expose weaknesses in legislative drafting, judicial coordination and political party regulation, while simultaneously reaffirming the constitutional independence of the country’s election management body. Rather than viewing the decisions as a constitutional crisis, they may be better understood as part of the ongoing evolution of Nigeria’s democratic institutions.

For policymakers, the implications are clear. Any constitutional ambiguities identified by the courts should be addressed well before party primaries begin. The National Assembly has an opportunity to review contested provisions of the Electoral Act, while the Supreme Court is expected to provide definitive legal interpretation where necessary. Delayed resolution would only encourage uncertainty and unnecessary litigation.

For INEC, sustained stakeholder engagement will be critical. Regular consultations with political parties, civil society organisations, media and election observers can help minimise misunderstanding over guidelines and reinforce confidence in the commission’s neutrality. Transparent communication will become increasingly important as preparations for the 2027 elections gather momentum.

The immediate headlines may focus on conflicting judgements, but the wider story is one of institutional resilience. Nigeria’s electoral framework has once again been tested by competing legal interpretations, yet the constitutional machinery of election administration continues to function. Whether the 2027 elections ultimately earn public confidence will depend less on the existence of litigation than on how effectively the country’s institutions respond to it.

If the courts provide timely clarity, lawmakers address legislative gaps and political actors commit to democratic norms, the present controversy may ultimately strengthen rather than weaken Nigeria’s electoral system.

For now, INEC’s assurance that the judgements do not constitute obstacles to credible elections appears less an expression of optimism than a recognition that democracy is sustained not by the absence of legal disputes, but by the ability of institutions to manage them within the rule of law.