However, the court held that those deadlines were inconsistent with the law.

Justice Umar ruled that, while INEC has the power to monitor party primaries and receive notices from political parties, it does not have the authority to prescribe timelines beyond those stipulated by the Electoral Act.

The judge held that Section 29(1) of the Electoral Act requires political parties to submit the particulars of candidates not later than 120 days before an election, stressing that INEC could not lawfully reduce that period through its timetable.

The court further ruled that under Section 31 of the Act, political parties are entitled to withdraw and replace candidates up to 90 days before an election, adding that the commission lacked powers to impose an earlier deadline.

Justice Umar also declared unlawful INEC’s decision to publish final candidates’ lists earlier than the minimum 60-day period prescribed under the law.

On campaigns, the judge held that the commission could not direct political parties to end campaigns two days before the elections, as the Electoral Act already provided for campaign periods.

The court also held that timelines set by INEC for the submission of membership registers for party primaries do not apply when parties are conducting fresh primaries to replace withdrawn candidates.

Consequently, the court set aside the affected portions of INEC’s revised timetable and schedule of activities for the 2027 general elections.

The judge declared that the timelines imposed by the electoral body were ‘inconsistent with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026’.

The Youth Party had argued that INEC, through the revised timetable, unlawfully attempted to curtail statutory rights granted to political parties under the Electoral Act.

Counsel for the plaintiff, J. O. Olotu, urged the court to void the disputed provisions of the timetable, while INEC’s lawyer, Sarafa Yusuf, asked the court to dismiss the suit.