Legal practitioners have expressed divergent views over a recent Federal High Court judgment nullifying the Independent National Electoral Commission’s (INEC) revised timetable and schedule for the 2027 general elections.
The lawyers shared their differing opinions in separate interviews with the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) on Saturday in Lagos.
Recall that Justice Mohammed Umar of a Federal High Court in Abuja, on Wednesday, nullified salient provisions of INEC’s revised schedule of activities for the 2027 general elections.
The Youth Party approached the court to challenge the revised schedule issued by INEC pursuant to Section 84(1) of the Electoral Act.
Section 84(1) of the Electoral Act deals with party primaries and requires parties to give INEC notice of conventions, congresses or primaries for candidates nomination.
The court ruled that the electoral umpire lacked the powers to abridge timelines expressly provided under the Electoral Act 2026.
Umar held that INEC could not lawfully impose timelines inconsistent with statutory provisions governing party primaries, submission of candidates’ particulars, withdrawal and substitution of candidates, publication of the final candidates’ list and campaign periods.
Mr Ademola Owolabi, Principal Partner at Ademola Adetokunbo & Co., argued that INEC, as a constitutional body, possessed exclusive authority to conduct elections and was not subordinate to the legislature.
“Section 158 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) expressly guarantees INEC’s autonomy.
“In my view, the National Assembly acted ultra vires by enacting restrictive provisions in the Electoral Act 2026,” Owolabi said.
He further argued that the Constitution, as the grundnorm, was intended to shield INEC from legislative interference or control.
“In the locus classicus of INEC v. Musa, the Supreme Court held that the National Assembly lacks the competence to fetter INEC’s constitutional powers.
“The Electoral Act 2026 cannot curtail or expand powers expressly conferred on INEC by the Constitution.
“I therefore advise the electoral body to appeal the judgment and test the extent of the National Assembly’s legislative powers over the commission,” he added.
However, Mr Chibuikem Opara, a partner at Justification Chambers, Ikeja, praised the judgment, describing it as evidence of judicial independence.
“This is one of those moments reminding Nigerians that the judiciary can assert its independence when necessary.
“It is a commendable judgment delivered without fear or favour.
“The trial judge simply declared the law as it stands, rather than as political actors would prefer,” he said.
Opara maintained that the court’s interpretation of the Electoral Act reflected a resurgence of progressive judicial activism in Nigeria.
“This decision will gladden stakeholders in the administration of justice, including members of the Bar,” he said.
On his part, an Abuja-based lawyer, Dr Monday Ubani (SAN), described the court’s decision nullifying key provisions in INEC’s revised timetable as legally authoritative.
Ubani, a former Chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association Section on Public Interest and Development Law (NBA-SPIDEL), however, noted that the decision could trigger unprecedented political realignments before the 2027 elections.
Reacting further, he added that the decision appeared legally authoritative when examined against the supremacy of statutory provisions over administrative guidelines.
According to him, Section 29(1) of the Electoral Act 2026 is explicit that once the National Assembly has fixed a timeline for submission of candidates’ particulars, INEC cannot shorten that period through regulations or administrative directives.
“Justice Umar’s reasoning therefore aligns with the established constitutional doctrine that delegated powers cannot exceed the enabling law,” he said.
Ubani, however, noted that INEC’s intention may not necessarily have been unlawful in purpose, although the court appeared to have found it repulsive in practice.
“INEC no doubt possesses powers under the Constitution and the Electoral Act to issue regulations, guidelines and timetables for elections. However, such powers are limited by the doctrine of ultra vires.
“Once INEC issues a guideline inconsistent with the Electoral Act, that guideline becomes null and void to the extent of the inconsistency,” he said.
According to him, the ruling is therefore a strong judicial reminder that electoral management bodies, no matter how powerful, must operate strictly within the boundaries established by the Constitution and the Electoral Act.
On the consequences of the judgment, he noted that the decision might become one of the most consequential electoral rulings shaping party defections, candidate nominations and the balance of power between INEC and the judiciary.
Also speaking, Mr Spurgeon Ataene, a Lagos-based constitutional lawyer, noted that the court’s decision had possibly spared the nation from anarchy.
He added that what would have turned into a spiralling escapade of civil unrest had now been tempered by the court’s decision.
According to him, those who cannot meet the deadline for registration as party members now have the opportunity to do so.
He further noted that movement from one party to another encouraged constitutional democracy, which would have been stifled by the timelines.
Ataene said the decision was in conformity with the freedom of association as enshrined in the 1999 Constitution, as amended.
He described the decision as a recrimination against the timelines and hailed the court for its verdict.
Mr Wale Abdul, another Lagos-based lawyer, said the ruling appeared to strengthen the constitutional rights of politicians to freely associate with political parties of their choice.
Abdul noted that the development could allow politicians to change political parties closer to elections without being constrained by previous membership deadlines imposed through electoral guidelines.
“The decision may widen political participation and provide greater flexibility for politicians seeking platforms that align with their aspirations,” he said.
He, however, cautioned that the final legal position would depend on the outcome of any appeal and the interpretation of relevant provisions of the Constitution and the Electoral Act by higher courts.
Also speaking, Mrs Jumoke Ajayi urged caution over suggestions that the ruling had completely opened the door to unrestricted party defections.
According to her, electoral processes remain governed by constitutional and statutory provisions, and any court decision must be carefully examined within the broader legal framework.
Ajayi said political actors must avoid making far-reaching conclusions until the full judgment was reviewed and all legal processes exhausted.
She added that while the ruling could influence political calculations ahead of the 2027 elections, it did not automatically remove all requirements applicable to candidates seeking elective offices.
“The implications of the judgment must be assessed in the context of existing electoral laws.
“It is important not to overstate its effect until the appellate courts have spoken, where necessary,” she added.
