Judges, Lawyers, and the 2027 Election

Femi falana

Last Wednesday, the Federal High Court invalidated the timeline issued by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) for the conduct of primaries and the nomination of candidates ahead of the 2027 general election. In a judgment delivered by Justice Mohammed Umar, the Court also set aside INEC’s May 10 deadline requiring political parties to submit a register and database of all their members as a condition for qualifying to participate in the general elections.

The Court held that the time frame announced by the electoral umpire for parties to conduct primaries and to submit, withdraw, or replace the names and particulars of their candidates for the general elections “is inconsistent with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026.” The case was filed against INEC by the Youth Party.

Yesterday, INEC appealed against the Federal High Court’s judgment, which nullified its revised timetable and schedule of activities for the 2027 general elections. INEC also filed a motion for a stay of execution of the judgment, pending the hearing and determination of its appeal at the Court of Appeal.

Today, the Federal High Court affirmed that INEC has the legal authority to fix timelines within which political parties must conduct their primaries ahead of the 2027 general elections. In the judgment, the court held that INEC is empowered under the Constitution and the Electoral Act 2026 to issue election timetables that include deadlines for political party primaries and related preparatory activities.

Justice J.K. Omotosho, who delivered the judgment, declared that an Election Timetable is a chain of events or actions which include submission of a membership register of political parties to be used for the purpose of primaries and the fixing of timeframes within which parties are to organize their primary elections for the 2027 election. The case was filed by the Social Democratic Party against INEC.

The judgments of the two courts of concurrent jurisdiction have caused unnecessary confusion in the polity. While Justice Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court limited INEC’s powers by barring it from imposing deadlines that conflict with statutory provisions, Justice A.K. Omotosho of the same Court affirmed INEC’s authority to issue a timetable that includes timelines for party primaries. INEC has been empowered to choose which of the judgments to comply with.

The National Judicial Council has repeatedly cautioned judges to desist from issuing conflicting orders, while the Nigerian Bar Association has warned lawyers to stop filing cases that are likely to provoke such orders. In the instant case, Justice Omotosho ought to have allowed the Court of Appeal to determine the validity of Justice Mohammed Umar’s judgment instead of issuing a conflicting order.

The National Judicial Council and the Nigerian Bar Association should promptly investigate the circumstances surrounding the issuance of conflicting orders in the cases of Youth Party v INEC and Social Democratic Party v INEC.

Unless the judges and lawyers involved in the legal charade are called to order, the 2027 election may be sabotaged by judicial and legal actions, as occurred in 1993 when the Ibrahim Babangida military junta anchored the annulment of the June 12 presidential election on conflicting orders of Nigerian courts.

•Femi Falana SAN