INEC Battles Six Major Suits Ahead Of 2027 Elections

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is facing at least six major court cases that could affect preparations for the 2027 general elections.

The suits, pending before the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal, challenge INEC’s powers, its revised election timetable and the legal status of some political parties.

The litigation comes barely four months after the commission released its revised timetable for the elections.

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

Presidential and National Assembly campaigns are scheduled to begin on August 19, while the elections will hold on January 16, 2027. Governorship and state Assembly polls are fixed for February 6, 2027.

The PUNCH highlights the major cases.

1. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 (NDC).

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. 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.

Lawyers React

A senior lawyer, Mike Ahamba, said the Court of Appeal would be mindful of the election timetable in delivering its judgments.

“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.

Another senior advocate, Bankole Akomolafe, said the litigation should not stop INEC’s timetable because the commission had taken precautionary steps by allowing parties and candidates to submit their details pending final court decisions.

“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.

INEC Says Timetable Intact

INEC National Commissioner, Mohammed Kudu Haruna, said the commission would continue preparations in line with its timetable.

“Primaries have closed, it’s just for them to submit the result of the primaries,” he said.

“There’s a deadline for the submission of names: July 11.”

Haruna said INEC would obey court orders but would not speculate on the impact of pending judgments.

“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 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 added.