— Odinkalu Mocks Legal Chaos As Two Federal High Court Judges Clash Over INEC Timetable
A judge of the Federal High Court, Justice James Omotosho, has delivered a judgment affirming the Independent National Electoral Commission’s (INEC) timetable and schedule of activities for the 2027 general elections as lawful directly contradicting the judgment delivered just days earlier by his colleague on the same court, Justice Mohammed Umar, who had nullified key aspects of the same timetable and declared that INEC lacked the statutory power to prescribe timelines for party primaries, candidate submission, substitution, and campaign periods.
The conflicting judgments from two judges of the same Federal High Court have plunged Nigeria’s pre-election process into an unprecedented state of legal uncertainty, leaving political parties, aspirants, INEC, and the general public caught between two diametrically opposed judicial pronouncements on the same subject matter with neither judgment automatically superseding the other, and both carrying equal legal force until a higher court resolves the conflict.
In a detail that underscores the urgency and possibly the deliberateness of the timing, Justice Omotosho’s judgment was promptly certified and made ready for immediate use a turnaround speed that stands in contrast to the days it took for the certified true copy of Justice Umar’s judgment to become available, during which INEC publicly stated it could not act because it had not yet received the ruling.
The legal landscape is now defined by two Federal High Court judgments that cannot coexist.
Justice Umar, in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/517/2026, delivered on May 20, 2026, following a suit filed by the Youth Party, held that INEC’s powers to receive notices of party primaries and observe them did not extend to fixing or prescribing the timetable within which political parties must conduct their primaries for the 2027 elections. He declared that INEC could not lawfully abridge the 120-day statutory window for candidate submission under Section 29(1) of the Electoral Act, the 90-day window for candidate substitution under Section 31, or the 60-day minimum period for publication of the final candidate list under Section 32. He nullified the timeframes in INEC’s revised timetable that were inconsistent with the Electoral Act 2026.
Justice Omotosho, in a separate suit, has now held the opposite affirming INEC’s timetable as lawful and effectively validating the commission’s authority to set the very timelines that Justice Umar declared ultra vires.
The result is that Nigeria now has two subsisting Federal High Court judgments on the same issue one saying INEC’s timetable is unlawful, the other saying it is lawful with no automatic mechanism for resolving the conflict at the same judicial level.
A notable aspect of Justice Omotosho’s judgment is the speed with which it was certified and made available. The judgment was delivered and the certified true copy was promptly prepared and ready for use on the same day.
This stands in sharp contrast to the experience with Justice Umar’s judgment, where INEC publicly stated through its Deputy Director of Publicity, Wilfred Osilama Ifogah, and its Director of Voter Education and Publicity, Victoria Eta-Messi, that the commission could not act on the ruling because it had not yet received a copy of the judgment a position the commission maintained for several days after the ruling was delivered.
The immediate certification of Justice Omotosho’s judgment means INEC now has a judicial pronouncement in hand that it can cite as legal authority for continuing to enforce its timetable even as the Youth Party and opposition parties rely on Justice Umar’s judgment as authority for the position that the timetable has been nullified.
Prominent legal scholar and former Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission, Prof. Chidi Anselm Odinkalu, CGoF, drew public attention to the conflicting judgments on social media, noting the irony and the legal chaos that the situation has created.
“James Omotosho, judge of the Federal High Court, has fired back today and affirmed the INEC timetable as lawful. The judgment delivered today is promptly certified and ready. Choose ye this day…!!” Odinkalu wrote on X (formerly Twitter).
The phrase also carries an implicit commentary on the state of Nigeria’s judiciary, where the practice of forum shopping filing cases before judges perceived to be sympathetic to a particular position has produced a pattern of conflicting court orders that undermine legal certainty and public confidence in the judicial process.
The phrase also carries an implicit commentary on the state of Nigeria’s judiciary, where the practice of forum shopping filing cases before judges perceived to be sympathetic to a particular position has produced a pattern of conflicting court orders that undermine legal certainty and public confidence in the judicial process.
The existence of two contradictory judgments from the same court on the same subject is possible because of the structure of Nigeria’s judicial system. The Federal High Court has multiple divisions across the country, each presided over by independent judges who exercise concurrent jurisdiction. Different parties can file different suits before different judges on substantially the same issues, and each judge renders judgment independently based on the arguments and evidence before them.
There is no automatic mechanism for consolidating related cases or preventing parallel proceedings that may produce conflicting outcomes. The result is that two judges of coordinate jurisdiction neither superior to the other can deliver opposite rulings, both of which are legally valid and enforceable until a higher court (the Court of Appeal) resolves the conflict.
This is precisely the scenario that has now materialised. Justice Umar ruled in favour of the Youth Party and against INEC. Justice Omotosho ruled in favour of INEC’s timetable. Both judgments emanate from the Federal High Court. Both are binding. And they directly contradict each other.
The conflicting judgments create a legal quagmire with several dimensions.
First, INEC now has judicial cover from both sides. The commission can point to Justice Omotosho’s judgment to justify enforcing its timetable, while parties seeking to exploit the expanded timelines can point to Justice Umar’s judgment. This effectively gives INEC the discretion to choose which judgment to follow a discretion that should not exist but has been created by the judicial conflict.