INEC creates uncertainty with warning to parties over guidelines

– Political parties condemn toying with court judgment 

The Independent National Electoral Commission’s (INEC)’s latest warning that political parties risk having candidates disqualified if their primaries were conducted after 30 May has triggered widespread controversy, renewed legal debate and intensified suspicions about the electoral body’s role in the unfolding political contest ahead of the 2027 general elections.

What might ordinarily have been a routine administrative clarification has instead opened a fresh chapter in the struggle over the boundaries of INEC’s powers, the rights of political parties, and the broader integrity of Nigeria’s democratic process.

At the centre of the controversy is a statement by INEC National Commissioner and Chairman of the Information and Voter Education Committee, Mohammed Kudu Haruna, who insisted that any primary election conducted outside the commission’s stipulated 30 May deadline would be invalid unless the Court of Appeal overturns an earlier Federal High Court judgment that questioned aspects of INEC’s timetable.

The warning came despite the fact that the judgment relied upon by INEC is currently under appeal and no appellate court has yet delivered a final pronouncement on the matter.

For critics, the commission’s position appears unusually assertive for an institution expected to maintain neutrality while litigation remains ongoing.

For supporters, however, it represents an attempt to preserve order and certainty in the electoral process pending judicial clarification.

Whatever the motivation, the statement has generated confusion across the political landscape and sparked speculation about its possible consequences for opposition parties and politicians seeking alternative political platforms after losing primaries elsewhere.

Legal Battle With Political Consequences

The dispute stems from a landmark judgment delivered by Justice Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court in Abuja in a suit filed by the Youth Party.

The court nullified portions of INEC’s electoral timetable and guidelines for the 2027 elections, holding that the commission lacked the authority to abridge timelines expressly provided under Section 29(1) of the Electoral Act 2026.

Justice Umar ruled that political parties are entitled to the timelines prescribed by law and that administrative guidelines cannot supersede statutory provisions enacted by the National Assembly.

The judgment was widely interpreted as expanding the political space available to parties and aspirants.

If allowed to stand, it would effectively mean that political parties could continue certain nomination processes beyond the dates originally stipulated by INEC, provided they remained within the broader timelines established by the Electoral Act.

INEC immediately appealed the judgment and sought a stay of execution. That decision surprised some observers.

To many political analysts, the Commission appeared unusually invested in defending a timetable that critics argued had unnecessarily narrowed opportunities for political participation.

The controversy deepened when Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, in a separate suit filed by the Social Democratic Party (SDP), affirmed INEC’s constitutional authority to issue and adjust electoral timetables.

However, even that judgment stated that such powers must be exercised within the limits prescribed by the Electoral Act.

The result is a situation in which both sides claim judicial support for their positions, leaving politicians, lawyers and party officials awaiting definitive clarification from the Court of Appeal.

Political analyst and lawyer, Jide Ologun, believes the apparent contradiction between the two judgmentl is less dramatic than many assume.

“In the case that Justice Umar presided over, he declared that INEC does not have the prerogative to abridge the timetable, and in the case Justice Omotosho presided over, he declared that INEC has the power, but that power must be exercised subject to the Electoral Act 2026 as amended,” he explained.

According to him, both decisions ultimately arrive at the same principle: that INEC must operate within the confines of the Electoral Act.

“The judiciary will still have to make a pronouncement. At the end of the day, the court will have to settle the matter,” he said.

Why the Stakes Are So High

Beyond the legal arguments lies a deeper political calculation. Although political parties largely complied with INEC’s directive by conducting primaries before 30 May, many have yet to publicly release comprehensive lists of successful candidates for Senate, House of Representatives and state assembly positions.

Only presidential candidates of the leading parties have been formally announced. Bola Tinubu, the incumbent president, will fly the flag of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC); Atiku Abubakar, a former Vice President is officially the candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC); Peter Obi, former, governor of Anambra State, is the candidate of the National Democratic Congress (NDC), while Donald Duke, former Cross River State governor, is the candidate of the Peoples Redemption Party (PRP).

The ruling APC, despite completing its internal processes, has yet to unveil the full list of candidates for several legislative positions. This delay has fuelled speculation across political circles.

Many observers believe political parties are engaged in a strategic waiting game.

The theory seems simple. Once APC publishes its final lists, unsuccessful aspirants may begin defecting to opposition parties in search of alternative tickets.

Parties, such as the NDC, ADC and others are believed to have left vacancies in some constituencies to accommodate potential defectors. Under this scenario, the legal uncertainty surrounding INEC’s timetable takes on enormous significance.

If the Commission’s interpretation prevails, opposition parties could find themselves unable to conduct replacement primaries or accommodate late entrants.

If the courts ultimately reject INEC’s position, the door could remain open for significant political realignments. This is why many analysts argue that the dispute is about far more than administrative deadlines. It may shape the balance of political competition before the election itself.

Allegations of Political Motives

As expected, the controversy has generated accusations that go beyond legal interpretation. Some opposition figures and commentators have alleged that the Commission’s actions may inadvertently or deliberately favour the ruling party.

Former member of the House of Representatives, Usman Bugaje, recently voiced concerns over what he described as a broader pattern affecting opposition parties.

“The government is working with INEC to sabotage opposition political parties,” he said during an appearance on Channels Television.

“You have seen what has happened to the PDP. You have seen what has happened to the Labour Party. You have seen what has happened to the SDP. You have seen what is happening even in the PRP. So, there’s a clear surreptitious move to weaken opposition parties.”

Bugaje’s comments reflect growing suspicion among sections of the political class, who fear that administrative and legal mechanisms are being deployed to limit political competition.

There is no evidence publicly presented to substantiate claims of collusion between INEC and the ruling party. Nevertheless, the perception has gained traction in some political circles, particularly given the timing of the commission’s warning.

Public Reactions

The controversy has also ignited debate on social media, where Nigerians have offered sharply differing interpretations of events.

Njoku Kelechi Iheanacho, a Facebook commentator, argued that all parties are effectively waiting for APC to reveal its complete list of candidates before making their own moves.

“We should understand what’s happening,” he wrote. “All the parties held their primaries before 30 May, but they are all playing a waiting game. They are waiting for APC to publicly release the results of their primaries first.”

According to him, the ruling party may be reluctant to publish the results because of possible litigation and defections that could follow.

“APC dey fear to declare results because of the implosion and decamping that will follow. We are waiting,” he added.

Another commentator, Lmokiri Ideozu Lovegod, expressed frustration with the Commission’s handling of the issue.

“INEC is gradually pushing the Nigerian masses to the wall. They shouldn’t underestimate what the people can turn to in a second when pushed to the wall,” he warned.

Similarly, Osoba Olusegun Okanlawon criticised the Commission’s priorities. “Amupitan should be very careful. They shouldn’t cause unnecessary problems in the country. Their server is being hacked, they can’t explain to us how it happened, and all they are concerned about is the opposition,” he said.

While such comments represent personal opinions rather than established facts, they illustrate the growing public mistrust surrounding the electoral process.

ADC’s Dilemma

The practical implications of the controversy are perhaps most visible within the ADC. The party recently ordered reruns of several primaries in Kaduna State after its appeals committee identified procedural irregularities, omitted aspirants and other breaches.

The committee directed fresh elections in constituencies including Ikara/Kubau and Kaduna South Federal Constituency, among others.

The question now confronting the party is whether those reruns can stand if conducted after INEC’s deadline. According to Ologun, the answer depends entirely on the outcome of ongoing litigation.

“If ADC subscribes to the position of INEC that any primary done after 30 May is void and the Court of Appeal supports that position, then it should be null and void,” he said.

“But if the appellate court says otherwise, then that would amount to a victory against INEC.”

The uncertainty highlights the practical difficulties created by unresolved legal disputes in the electoral process. Political parties must make strategic decisions today without knowing what the courts may ultimately decide tomorrow.

Lessons for Nigerian Democracy

Beyond the immediate controversy lies a larger question about the health of Nigeria’s democratic system. The 2026 primary season has exposed recurring tensions between legal frameworks, administrative regulations and political interests.

Many observers argue that the dispute demonstrates the need for clearer electoral laws and more predictable judicial outcomes.

“The 2026 Electoral Act is very problematic. It left the key issue of real time polling units transmission of results hanging, then dabbled into the issue of primaries and in the process, created confusion everywhere,” said Anthony Chidi, a legal practitioner and public affairs commentator.

“Now, there is no longer real primary election but imposition of candidates by strong men.”

Others contend that it reflects deeper problems within party politics itself.

The heavy reliance on defections, strategic alliances and post-primary manoeuvring suggests that ideological distinctions between parties remain weak, while personal ambition continues to dominate political calculations.

The controversy has also renewed concerns about the judiciary’s role in electoral matters. Ologun lamented what he described as increasing judicial involvement in internal political disputes.

“It is quite interesting that what the judiciary allows to happen within the political space is embarrassing,” he said. “It is sad that politicians have a way of running over the judiciary.”

His comments echo broader concerns that courts are increasingly being asked to resolve disputes that political institutions should ordinarily manage themselves.

Awaiting the Next Verdict

For now, uncertainty remains the defining feature of the controversy. INEC insists that its timetable remains valid until overturned by a superior court.

Political parties continue to interpret the law through the lens of their own strategic interests. Lawyers remain divided over the scope of the Commission’s powers. And politicians are carefully watching developments that could determine whether future defections and candidate substitutions remain possible.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal is expected to provide the next major legal pronouncement.

Its decision could settle the question of whether INEC possesses the authority to impose deadlines that effectively shorten timelines provided by the Electoral Act. Until then, the controversy is likely to persist.