2027: Opposition in limbo as FG, INEC move against court verdict

As preparations for the 2027 general elections gather momentum, Nigeria’s political landscape has been plunged into fresh uncertainty following conflicting judgments from the Federal High Court on the powers of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to regulate party primaries and membership registration timelines.

At the centre of the controversy is a legal battle that many political actors believe could significantly influence the fortunes of opposition parties, particularly at a time when a wave of defections from the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) is reshaping the political equation ahead of the polls.

The confusion stems from two judgments delivered within days of each other by judges of coordinate jurisdiction in Abuja. While one judgment invalidated key aspects of INEC’s electoral timetable, another affirmed the commission’s constitutional authority to determine timelines for political party primaries and other preparatory activities.

The contradiction has created uncertainty for opposition parties such as the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC), the African Democratic Congress (ADC), the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), and several others that have recently attracted prominent politicians dissatisfied with the outcome of APC primaries.

Former Deputy Senate President Ovie Omo-Agege, former Speaker of the Delta State House of Assembly Victor Ochei, and several other political figures have already moved to alternative political platforms in pursuit of their ambitions. Former Minister of Communications and Digital Economy, Isa Pantami, also left the APC to pursue his governorship aspiration under the PDP in Gombe State.

For many observers, the court decisions are not merely legal disputes, but could determine whether politicians who lost APC primaries can still find political refuge in opposition parties and contest elections under those platforms.

The Judgment That Changed the Political Calculation

The legal controversy began when Justice Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court, Abuja, delivered a landmark judgment in a suit filed by the Youth Party.

The court nullified INEC’s directive requiring political parties to submit their membership registers and databases by May 10, 2026, ahead of the 2027 elections.

Justice Umar held that INEC lacked the authority to abridge timelines already established by the Electoral Act 2026. The court ruled that Section 29(1) of the Act grants political parties until 120 days before an election to submit the particulars of their candidates, making any earlier deadline imposed by INEC inconsistent with the law.

The judgment was immediately celebrated by opposition parties and pro-democracy groups.

The Coalition of United Political Parties (CUPP) described the ruling as a victory for internal democracy, arguing that it expanded political space by allowing aspirants who lose primaries in one party to defect and seek nominations elsewhere.

According to CUPP, at least 14 political parties were already considering extending their internal schedules to accommodate intending defectors following the ruling.

For politicians dissatisfied with APC primaries, the judgment appeared to provide a lifeline.

With the presidential election scheduled for January 2027, the ruling effectively meant that parties would have until September 2026 to submit relevant documents to INEC, thereby creating a wider window for political realignments.

INEC Strikes Back

However, INEC was unwilling to accept the verdict. The commission swiftly filed an appeal and sought a stay of execution of the judgment.

In its notice of appeal, INEC argued that Justice Umar erred in law and adopted an unduly restrictive interpretation of the Electoral Act.

The electoral body maintained that its guidelines were issued lawfully to ensure orderly preparation for the elections and that it possessed the constitutional authority to regulate electoral activities within reasonable limits.

The decision to appeal surprised many observers. Some legal analysts questioned why INEC appeared determined to defend a timeline that critics say effectively curtailed rights granted to political parties under the Electoral Act.

“Why is INEC appealing the judgment?” queried legal practitioner Anthony Chidi. “Something appears unusual about that decision. I did not expect the commission to appeal because it does not seem to have much at stake. The parties directly affected are the political parties, so why the rush to challenge the ruling?”

For sceptics, the appeal reinforced suspicions that powerful interests within the ruling establishment were uncomfortable with the political opportunities the judgment created for opposition parties.

The timing of the commission’s actions has only intensified those suspicions.

Many opposition figures had interpreted the May 10 deadline as an attempt to prevent post-primary defections from the APC by forcing parties to finalise membership registers long before the legal deadline envisaged by the Electoral Act.

The appeal, therefore, is being viewed in some quarters as a continuation of that effort.

A Second Judgment Deepens the Confusion

Just as political actors were digesting Justice Umar’s decision, another Federal High Court judge delivered a ruling that complicated matters further.

In a suit filed by the Social Democratic Party (SDP), Justice James Omotosho affirmed INEC’s authority to issue election timetables and determine timelines for party primaries and related electoral activities.

The judgment held that election timetables are part of the commission’s constitutional responsibilities and that INEC possesses the authority to organise and regulate the electoral process.

The ruling appeared to provide judicial backing for the very powers that had been questioned in the earlier judgment.

While Justice Omotosho acknowledged that INEC cannot shorten timelines expressly provided by law, his affirmation of the commission’s power to issue electoral timetables created an apparent tension with Justice Umar’s earlier decision.

The result has been legal uncertainty at a crucial period in Nigeria’s electoral calendar.

Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Dr Monday Ubani, believes the perceived contradiction may not be as extensive as many assume. According to him, both judges substantially agreed on a fundamental principle: that subsidiary regulations cannot override the Electoral Act.

“Justice Umar who gave the first judgment in the case filed by the Youth Party made a very sweeping judgment nullifying several portions of the administrative timetable of INEC towards the 2027 general election,” Ubani explained.

He noted that the court accepted the argument that where a guideline conflicts with substantive legislation, the guideline must give way.

“The argument the court bought is that that particular guideline breached the statutory framework that gave INEC the power to issue guidelines. When there is any conflict between a guideline, which is a subsidiary legislation, and the substantive law, the subsidiary law will be declared invalid to the extent of the inconsistency.”

Ubani said the controversy centres on the May 10 deadline imposed by INEC for submission of membership registers.

According to him, the Electoral Act already provides a broader timeframe and any attempt to shorten that period affects the rights of political parties and candidates.

However, he stressed that Justice Omotosho did not completely depart from that position.

“In the case of Justice Omotosho, he agreed substantially with the judgment of Justice Umar as to the issue of the fact that the electoral guidelines should not supersede the substantive law,” Ubani said.

He explained that the key difference lies in how both judges viewed INEC’s administrative powers.

“What Justice Omotosho was saying is that if the law has given INEC powers to issue guidelines and timetables, and the guidelines do not conflict with the enabling law, then you cannot invalidate that timetable.”

According to him, the dispute is essentially about the scope of INEC’s constitutional authority to organise elections.

Ubani acknowledged that the judgments have nevertheless introduced uncertainty.

“The point is that judges see things differently. They are all human beings and not spirits,” he said.

“That is why we have the appellate process. When there is any conflicting judgment like this, it has to be harmonised at the appropriate appellate court.”

For him, the Court of Appeal now carries the responsibility of providing clarity before preparations for the 2027 elections advance further.

“Justice Omotosho’s judgment has introduced some level of ambiguity and that can and should be cleared at the Court of Appeal in an expeditious manner,” he stated.

His position reflects a broader concern among legal practitioners who fear that prolonged uncertainty could affect political planning across the country.

While Ubani advocates judicial harmonisation, human rights lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Femi Falana, has taken a more critical position.

Falana believes the conflicting judgments represent a dangerous development that could undermine public confidence in both the judiciary and the electoral process.

He has called on the National Judicial Council (NJC) to investigate the circumstances surrounding the judgments.

According to him, Justice Omotosho ought to have exercised restraint given that INEC had already appealed Justice Umar’s decision.

“Justice Omotosho ought to have allowed the Court of Appeal to determine the validity of the judgment of Justice Muhammed Umar instead of issuing conflicting orders,” Falana said.

The senior lawyer warned that the contradictory decisions have effectively placed INEC in a position where it can choose which judgment to obey.

“The judgments of both courts of coordinate jurisdiction have caused unnecessary confusion in the polity,” he argued.

“INEC has been empowered to choose and pick which of the judgments to comply with.”

Falana described the situation as troubling, particularly because both the NJC and the Nigerian Bar Association have repeatedly warned against judicial practices that produce conflicting orders.

He urged both institutions to investigate the circumstances surrounding the cases involving the Youth Party and the SDP.

Echoes of 1993

Perhaps most significantly, Falana warned that unresolved judicial conflicts could pose a threat to the credibility of the 2027 elections.

Drawing parallels with one of the darkest chapters in Nigeria’s democratic history, he recalled how conflicting court orders played a role in the events surrounding the annulment of the June 12, 1993 presidential election.

“Unless the judges and lawyers involved in the legal charade are called to order, the 2027 election may be sabotaged by judges and lawyers as was the case in 1993,” he warned.

For many Nigerians, the memory of June 12 remains a reminder of how legal and political manoeuvres can derail democratic processes.

Opposition Parties Await Clarity

As the legal contest moves to the Court of Appeal, opposition parties remain uncertain about how to proceed.

The NDC, ADC, PDP and several smaller parties are watching developments closely because the final outcome could determine whether they can continue accommodating defectors from rival parties without running afoul of electoral regulations.

For politicians who lost APC primaries, the stakes are equally high.

A decision affirming Justice Umar’s ruling could preserve a wider window for political migration and candidate substitution. A reversal, however, could significantly narrow those options.

Beyond the immediate political calculations, the controversy raises broader questions about the balance between INEC’s regulatory authority and the rights guaranteed to political parties under the Electoral Act.

Ultimately, the dispute has evolved into a test of the judiciary’s ability to provide certainty in a politically sensitive environment. Observers note that until the Court of Appeal delivers a definitive interpretation, Nigeria’s opposition parties, aspirants seeking alternative platforms, and indeed INEC itself remain trapped in a legal limbo whose consequences could reverberate throughout the 2027 electoral cycle.