The Coalition of United Political Parties and other major political parties have called on the Independent National Electoral Commission to immediately revise its 2027 election timetable to comply with a Federal High Court judgment delivered on May 21, 2026.
In a statement signed by Chief Peter Ameh, Acting National Chairman of the Coalition of United Political Parties, the parties said they remain committed to free, fair, and credible elections in 2027 and will continue to defend democratic principles through lawful means.
The parties said the ruling by Justice M.G. Umar expands democratic space by giving political parties greater control over internal processes. In a joint position, they urged INEC to align its revised schedule with the court’s directives and avoid any move that could create uncertainty ahead of the 2027 general elections.
The judgment affirms several key changes: politicians who lose party primaries can defect to another party and still be validly substituted as candidates; the 21-day party register requirement is nullified; substitution primaries are exempted from strict Electoral Act timelines; and INEC cannot dictate specific dates for internal party activities or unilaterally shorten submission and publication windows.
“We commend the Federal High Court for this progressive and constitution-aligned judgment,” Ameh said.
“INEC must immediately obey this ruling and adjust its timetable accordingly. Any decision to appeal this judgment will only create unnecessary uncertainty, erode public confidence, and undermine the credibility of the 2027 general elections.”
Ameh added that 14 political parties have agreed to release extended election timetables to accommodate new defectors and ensure a more inclusive nomination process in line with the court’s decision.
The parties argued that the ruling strengthens internal democracy, protects party autonomy, and safeguards the rights of aspirants and candidates. They called on INEC to work with political parties to produce a revised, realistic timetable that reflects the court’s directives.
0 Comments