The Inter-Party Advisory Council on Friday hailed a Federal High Court judgment which voided key portions of the 2027 election timetable released by the Independent National Electoral Commission, describing it as a victory for constitutional order and democracy.
A Federal High Court in Abuja had on Wednesday ruled that INEC exceeded its legal powers by shortening timelines provided under the Electoral Act, 2026, in its revised election schedule.
The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/517/2026, was filed by the Youth Party, which challenged aspects of INEC’s timetable covering party primaries, nomination of candidates, withdrawals and replacements, publication of final candidates’ lists and campaign periods.
Delivering judgment, Justice M. G. Umar held that INEC could not lawfully abridge statutory timelines set out in the Electoral Act.
Reacting in a statement issued in Abuja, IPAC National Publicity Secretary Egbeola Martins said the judgment reaffirmed the supremacy of the Constitution and the Electoral Act over administrative guidelines.
Martins described the ruling as a “major victory for democracy and the rule of law,” adding that INEC’s guidelines cannot override statutory provisions.
He said: “The judgment is a clear reaffirmation of constitutional supremacy and the rule of law. It is an aberration for INEC to attempt to rewrite the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria through administrative guidelines.
“INEC guidelines can never be superior to the Constitution or the provisions of extant laws governing the electoral process.
“While no one is questioning the powers of the commission to issue guidelines for the conduct of elections, such guidelines must operate strictly within the confines of the law.
“This judgment therefore represents a major victory for democracy, the rule of law, political parties and indeed all citizens of Nigeria.
“We call on the Chairman of INEC to deepen engagement and consultation with political parties, which remain the most important stakeholders in the electoral process.”
IPAC also argued that the ruling would prevent exclusionary practices capable of disenfranchising aspirants and political parties.