By Arziki Lekwot
The judgement delivered by the Federal High Court on May 21, 2026, in the case of Youth Party v. INEC, has triggered an important national conversation about electoral fairness, procedural certainty, and the delicate balance between judicial intervention and democratic stability. While the court’s intention may have been to correct perceived defects in INEC’s guidelines concerning deadlines for the submission of political parties’ membership registers, the broader implications of the ruling raise troubling questions about equity and timing within Nigeria’s already fragile electoral ecosystem.
At the heart of the matter lies a simple but fundamental principle: a remedy should not create a fresh injustice.
The court nullified INEC’s earlier guidelines and effectively extended critical electoral deadlines — including timelines connected to membership registers, party primaries, and candidate nominations — until September 2026. On the surface, the decision appears to widen democratic participation and provide relief for parties and aspirants who argued that they were unfairly constrained by the electoral timetable. Yet, beneath that surface lies a serious fairness dilemma that cannot be ignored.
Democracy thrives not merely on participation, but on predictability, consistency, and equal application of rules. Electoral processes are not casual exercises; they involve enormous financial commitments, strategic planning, organizational mobilization, and political calculations. Political parties and aspirants structure their entire operations around published timetables and guidelines issued by the electoral umpire. Once those rules are obeyed in good faith, changing them midway through the process inevitably disadvantages those who complied.
This is precisely why the current situation is problematic.
The ruling comes at a time when several political parties — particularly the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) — have substantially progressed in their internal electoral activities in compliance with INEC’s original schedule. Forms have been purchased. Aspirants have been screened. Primaries have been conducted in several constituencies. In many cases, outcomes are already in the public domain. Political alignments, campaign structures, strengths, weaknesses, and tactical calculations have largely been exposed.
On the other hand, many opposition parties remain far behind in their processes. By virtue of this judicial extension, they are now handed additional time and strategic advantage to study the political terrain, reassess their weaknesses, recalibrate their plans, and potentially exploit information already revealed by parties that complied with the original guidelines.
That is hardly a level playing field.
The danger becomes even more pronounced when one considers the political maneuvering that such an extended window now permits. Politicians who lost out during screening exercises, failed to secure tickets, or were edged out during party primaries suddenly find themselves with renewed opportunities to defect, realign, negotiate fresh platforms, and re-enter contests through alternative political arrangements. While political mobility is not inherently undemocratic, the sudden reopening of the process after substantial compliance by others injects uncertainty and instability into the electoral environment.
Rules are meaningful only when they are stable, predictable, and fairly enforced. Once political actors begin to believe that timelines can be altered midway through the race, confidence in the integrity of the process weakens. Electoral administration becomes vulnerable to endless litigation, tactical delays, and opportunistic political engineering.
This is not to suggest that courts should ignore genuine grievances against INEC or refuse to correct procedural defects where they exist. Far from it. Judicial oversight remains essential in any democracy governed by the rule of law. However, courts must also weigh the practical consequences of their decisions on parties and citizens who have already acted in reliance on existing rules.
Justice, after all, must be balanced. It must protect not only those who claim exclusion, but also those who demonstrated compliance.
INEC, therefore, owes the nation a duty to seek immediate appellate clarification on this matter. An appeal is necessary not merely to defend institutional authority, but to protect the integrity, certainty, and fairness of the electoral process itself. The appellate courts now have an opportunity to determine whether a judicial remedy that disrupts an ongoing electoral process, after substantial compliance by major stakeholders, truly advances democratic justice or inadvertently creates a new form of inequality.
Anything short of a prompt appeal risks allowing judicial correction to become a fresh source of unfairness.
Nigeria’s democracy cannot afford electoral rules that shift dramatically in the middle of the game. Political actors must know, with certainty, that compliance with established regulations will not later become a strategic disadvantage.
That certainty is essential for public trust. And public trust is the lifeblood of democracy.
Lekwot contributed this from Kafanchan, Kaduna State.
