By Okoi Obono-Obla
The Judgment of the Federal High Court, Abuja Division, presided over by Honourable Justice M.G. Umar, was delivered on Thursday, 21 May 2026, in a suit filed by the Youth Party against the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
Having read the tendentious manner in which some media organs reported the Judgment, I decided to search online for the certified true copy. Fortunately, I stumbled upon one.
On a cursory glance through the Judgment, I sought to confirm whether there was any interpretation or construction of Section 77 of the Electoral Act, 2026, which provides that political parties must digitalize their membership registers and submit same to INEC not later than 21 days before convening their convention, congress, conference, or meeting to elect leadership or nominate candidates for the general election. To my chagrin and consternation, I found that no such matter was addressed in the entire Judgment, contrary to what some media organs reported.
It is therefore pertinent to reproduce the reliefs sought by the Claimant in order to form an informed opinion.
Reliefs Sought vs. Reliefs Granted:
| Reliefs Sought by Youth Party | Reliefs Granted by the Court |
|———————————–|—————————–
| Declaration that INEC’s powers under Sections 29, 82, and 84(1) do not extend to fixing or prescribing the timetable for party primaries. | Granted — Court declared INEC has no power to fix or prescribe timetables for primaries. |
| Declaration that under Section 29(1), INEC cannot shorten the 120‑day period for submission of candidates’ particulars. | Granted — Court affirmed the 120‑day statutory period must be respected. |
| Declaration that under Section 31, INEC cannot shorten the 90‑day period for withdrawal/substitution of candidates. | Granted — Court upheld the 90‑day statutory period. |
| Declaration that under Section 32, INEC cannot publish the final list of candidates earlier than 60 days before elections. | Granted — Court confirmed INEC must wait until the 60‑day minimum. |
| Declaration that under Section 98, INEC cannot end campaigns 2 days before elections. | Granted — Court ruled campaigns can continue until election eve. |
| Order nullifying INEC’s revised timetable for primaries, submissions, withdrawals, final lists, and campaigns. | Granted — Court set aside INEC’s timetable where inconsistent with the Act. |
| Any other consequential orders in the interest of justice. | Granted with clarification — Court added that INEC’s requirement for submission of membership registers does not apply to primaries conducted to replace withdrawn candidates (Section 33). |
Practical Implications of the Judgment:
1. Political parties now enjoy greater autonomy in scheduling their primaries, provided they respect statutory deadlines.
2. Candidate submissions are safeguarded, ensuring parties have the full 120‑day window to finalize nominations.
3. Campaign timelines remain open until the eve of elections, maximizing voter engagement opportunities.
4. INEC’s administrative discretion is curtailed, reinforcing that the Electoral Act, 2026 is supreme over INEC’s internal schedules.
5. Smaller parties benefit most, as they are no longer pressured by shortened deadlines that favour larger, more organized parties.
Conclusion:This Judgment is a landmark decision affirming that INEC must operate strictly within the boundaries of the Electoral Act, 2026. By striking down INEC’s revised timetable, the Court strengthened the autonomy of political parties, protected statutory timelines for candidate processes, and ensured fairness in campaign opportunities.
Leave a comment