2027 elections: Six legal hurdles before INEC

Barely four months after the Independent National Electoral Commission unveiled its revised timetable and schedule of activities for the 2027 general elections, the electoral body has become embroiled in a wave of litigation that could reshape the country’s next electoral cycle.

Under the timetable released on February 26, political parties were required to submit their membership registers between March 24 and April 25, conclude their primaries by May 31, while the nomination portal for presidential and National Assembly candidates opened on June 27 and is scheduled to close on July 11.

Governorship and House of Assembly nomination forms are to be submitted between July 18 and August 8, while campaigns for the presidential and National Assembly elections are expected to commence on August 19.

INEC is scheduled to publish the final list of presidential and National Assembly candidates on September 12, ahead of the presidential and National Assembly elections on January 16, 2027, and the governorship and state Houses of Assembly polls on February 6, 2027.

However, even as those milestones unfold, at least six major cases involving INEC are pending before the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal, challenging the commission’s powers, the validity of its election timetable and the legal status of some political parties.

The outcome of the cases is expected to determine not only the extent of INEC’s administrative powers under the Electoral Act but also which political parties eventually participate in the 2027 polls.

The PUNCH highlights the major cases.

1. Youth Party challenges INEC’s timetable

The most significant of the suits is FHC/ABJ/CS/517/2026, filed by the Youth Party against INEC before the Federal High Court in Abuja.

The party challenged key provisions of INEC’s revised timetable, arguing that the commission lacked the legal authority to prescribe timelines that allegedly curtailed periods expressly guaranteed under the Electoral Act.

The suit specifically questioned deadlines relating to the submission of party membership registers, conduct of party primaries, submission of nomination forms, withdrawal and substitution of candidates, and publication of candidates’ particulars. It sought declarations that the disputed provisions were unlawful and orders restraining INEC from enforcing them.

In its judgment, the Federal High Court held that although INEC has constitutional powers to organise elections and issue guidelines, those powers cannot override or abridge timelines expressly prescribed by the Electoral Act. The court consequently nullified the portions of the revised timetable found to be inconsistent with the Act and restrained the commission from implementing them.

Dissatisfied with the decision, INEC appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the trial court wrongly curtailed its constitutional and statutory powers to regulate electoral activities.

According to the commission, the election timetable is an integrated programme in which every stage—from submission of membership registers and conduct of primaries to nomination of candidates, campaigns and publication of final lists—is interconnected. It argued that removing isolated timelines would create uncertainty and disrupt preparations for the 2027 elections.

The appeal has been argued before the Court of Appeal, which has reserved judgment. A date for the judgment is yet to be announced.

The case is particularly significant because it directly affects the deadlines already prescribed for party primaries and the submission of nomination forms.

2. SDP contests nomination deadlines

Another major challenge came in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/720/2026, instituted by the Social Democratic Party against INEC.

Like the Youth Party, the SDP questioned aspects of the revised election timetable, particularly provisions relating to nomination and substitution of candidates.

The party contended that INEC’s administrative timelines conflicted with the Electoral Act and sought declarations nullifying the disputed provisions.

Although the Federal High Court affirmed INEC’s constitutional authority to issue an election timetable, it ruled that the commission could not lawfully alter statutory timelines relating to nomination and substitution of candidates. It consequently invalidated the affected portions of the timetable.

INEC appealed the judgment, maintaining that the trial court failed to appreciate the operational realities of election management and that every activity contained in the timetable was designed to ensure the orderly conduct of the elections.

The appeal has also been heard by the Court of Appeal, which reserved judgment after taking arguments from the parties.

The dispute remains significant as political parties continue submitting Forms EC9, EC9A, EC9B, EC9C, EC9D and EC9E through INEC’s nomination portal for presidential and National Assembly candidates.

3. Appeal Court to settle INEC timetable dispute

The appeals arising from FHC/ABJ/CS/517/2026 and FHC/ABJ/CS/720/2026 have now become the most consequential pre-election litigation ahead of the 2027 polls.

In Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/517/2026, the Federal High Court in Abuja held that the Independent National Electoral Commission exceeded its statutory powers by shortening timelines prescribed under the Electoral Act, 2026, through its Revised Timetable and Schedule of Activities for the 2027 general elections.

The court nullified the affected provisions, holding that INEC could not abridge timelines relating to party primaries, submission of membership registers, nomination, withdrawal and substitution of candidates where they conflicted with the Act.

In Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/720/2026, the court affirmed INEC’s constitutional and statutory power to issue election timetables and regulate electoral activities. However, it ruled that such powers must be exercised within the confines of the Electoral Act.

While upholding INEC’s authority to fix timelines for party primaries and related activities, the court struck down aspects of the timetable concerning the nomination, withdrawal and substitution of candidates that were inconsistent with the Act.

INEC is asking the Court of Appeal to set aside both judgments, insisting that the Federal High Court wrongly restricted powers vested in the commission by the Constitution and the Electoral Act.

The commission argued that electoral activities are sequential and cannot be isolated without creating uncertainty in the electoral process.

A decision by the appellate court is expected to determine the extent of INEC’s authority to prescribe administrative timelines beyond those expressly contained in the Electoral Act.

The judgment is expected before the electoral process progresses further into the campaign phase, making it one of the most anticipated election-related decisions ahead of 2027.

4. Suit seeking deregistration of five political parties

Another politically significant case is FHC/ABJ/CS/2637/2026.

The Incorporated Trustees of the National Forum of Former Legislators instituted the suit against INEC, the African Democratic Congress, Accord, Action Alliance, Action People’s Party and Zenith Labour Party.

The plaintiff challenged the continued participation of the affected political parties in Nigeria’s electoral process and sought orders compelling INEC to deregister them.

The Federal High Court agreed with the plaintiff and ordered INEC to deregister the five political parties.

However, the judgment did not take immediate effect.

Following separate notices of appeal filed by the affected parties, the Court of Appeal granted a stay of execution of the judgment pending the determination of the appeals, effectively preserving the legal status of the parties until the dispute is finally resolved.

The interim order ensured that the parties remain in existence pending the determination of their appeals.

5. Registration of NDC questioned

Another pending matter is Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1115/2026.

The suit was filed by Ahidjo Ibrahim Karlahi against INEC and the Nigeria Democratic Congress.

The plaintiff is challenging the commission’s decision relating to the registration and recognition of the political party and is asking the court to determine whether the registration complied with the applicable constitutional and statutory provisions.

The case remains pending before the Federal High Court.

Its outcome could determine whether the NDC retains its legal status ahead of the conclusion of the nomination process and publication of the final list of candidates scheduled for September.

6. ADC, Accord, others battle deregistration at Appeal Court

The Federal High Court’s judgment in FHC/ABJ/CS/2637/2026 did not end the controversy.

The African Democratic Congress, Accord, Action Alliance, Action People’s Party and Zenith Labour Party have approached the Court of Appeal seeking to overturn the judgment directing their deregistration.

INEC is one of the respondents in the appeals.

The parties are asking the appellate court to set aside the judgment of the Federal High Court, arguing that the trial judge erred in law by directing INEC to deregister them.

They contend that the decision was reached in error and have urged the appellate court to restore and preserve their legal status ahead of the 2027 general elections.

When the appeals came up before a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, on July 7, 2026, the court adjourned the matters till July 14, 2026, to enable parties regularise and exchange all relevant court processes.

The outcome of the appeals will determine whether the five parties remain eligible to sponsor candidates before INEC publishes the final list of presidential and National Assembly candidates on September 12, 2026, under the commission’s timetable.

Why cases matter

Collectively, the six cases have become the first major judicial test of preparations for the 2027 general elections.

Beyond determining the legality of INEC’s revised timetable, the courts are also being asked to pronounce on the scope of the commission’s constitutional powers and the continued participation of some political parties in Nigeria’s electoral process.

With party primaries concluded, the nomination process already underway, presidential campaigns scheduled to commence on August 19, and the presidential election fixed for January 16, 2027, legal observers say the decisions expected from the appellate courts could significantly influence the conduct of the elections and shape the legal framework within which political parties will contest power in 2027.

Lawyers react

A senior lawyer, Mike Ahamba, while addressing the cases challenging the legality of INEC’s review of the election timetable and timeline, said the appellate court would be aware of the timeline for delivering judgments, but declined to give any further comments on the matter.

“Well, the Court of Appeal has a constitutional period within which to review judgments. And the judgment will come before that time or before the election next year. But I want to say this: it is wrong for me to pre-empt the Court of Appeal. I want to wait for them to explain their opinion, and then I will know whether they are right or wrong,” Ahamba said.

Addressing the cases and appeals on parties’ deregistration, Bankole Akomolafe, SAN, said he didn’t believe the litigations would affect the INEC timetable or the conduct of the 2026 elections, noting that the electoral body had taken steps to preserve itself in the interim.

“I don’t think the judgment or litigation will affect the timetable of INEC in any way because INEC itself have taken adequate precaution. So, what they are doing at the moment, which I consider reasonable, is to put the names of all the parties and all the candidates that they sent to them, and put them on record, and play safe.

“So, if the judgment of the court comes out later, and they deregister any of them, or say, this or that party has no legitimacy to contest any election, then they just simply skip those during the general election. But it would not be that when that judgment comes out, the person, or party or candidate that was supposed to have been captured or put on record is not there, because that would nullify the whole of the election.

“So, the wise thing to do, which I think INEC has acted wisely, is to register them in anticipation that all of them will pass. In this case, like I said the other time, one cannot say which party will scale the appeal,” he stated.

He further commended the intervention of the appellate court, noting that the court “acted rightly by ordering a stay of execution of that judgment, such that INEC could go on as if those parties are duly registered, pending the determination of the appeal.”

Addressing the matter of the registration of the NDC, the senior lawyer said the electoral body ought to have challenged the initial judgment that “decreed them into existence, stating that “When you knew that they did not comply with the position of the constitution, why didn’t you challenge the judgment? It doesn’t matter that it was the court that decreed them into existence. You will obey first, but you complain later. I think INEC is afraid of the NDC because if it were a greater party, they would have contested it. But that’s my opinion,” he added.

INEC positive

INEC, however, gave the assurance that ongoing litigation involving political parties will not disrupt its preparations for forthcoming elections, insisting that it remains guided by its timetable while awaiting court decisions.

INEC National Commissioner, Mohammed Kudu Haruna, stated this in a telephone conversation with The PUNCH on Wednesday, explaining that the commission would continue with its electoral preparations as scheduled and would only take decisions based on the outcome of court judgments.

Haruna noted that party primaries had already concluded and political parties were now expected to submit the names of their candidates before the deadline.

He said, “Primaries have closed, it’s just for them (political parties) to submit the result of the primaries. Primaries ended on May 30th. There’s a deadline for the submission of names: July 11th. Today (Wednesday) is 8th, so there’s still at least three more days to go before the deadline for submission.”

Speaking on pending court cases involving some parties and if the decision of the court could cause a change in the election timetable, the INEC national commissioner expressed confidence that the judiciary would deliver judgments in good time to avoid any constitutional complications.

“It all depends. Of course, the judges have a responsibility, and they know what the timetable is saying and I’m sure they will make their judgments early enough so that it doesn’t cause any constitutional crisis. So it’s one way or the other, depending on what the courts say. Our own is to obey the court order,” he said.

Haruna stressed that INEC would not speculate on the possible implications of any court ruling and how it will affect the election date until the commission had formally received and examined the judgments.

“I can’t tell you that now because once we receive the judgement, we will have to study it and then the commission will sit and take a decision. One way or the other, I can’t just on my own, tell you that we decide this way or the other.

“So, the commission has to meet, consider the court judgment and then decide what is best,” he added.

Reaffirming the commission’s commitment to its electoral timetable, Haruna said ongoing legal disputes had not altered INEC’s preparations.

He said, “No, we are going ahead as if there was no judgment because you remember there is a stay on some of these. So, we are proceeding as if, according to our timetable. But when the courts make their judgments, it is after then that we will sit, discuss the judgment and see how to proceed.”

He maintained that while INEC remained bound by court orders, its preparations for the elections would continue uninterrupted unless the courts directed otherwise as the deadline for submission of nomination still remains July 11.