As Nigeria prepares for another electoral cycle, questions are emerging over the recent release of the 2027 General Election timetable by the Independent National Electoral Commission, even as the proposed 2026 Electoral Act Amendment Bill is still under consideration at the National Assembly and yet to receive presidential assent from Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
The move has sparked debate across political and civic spaces.
Is this administrative foresight or institutional presumption?
A Question of Timing.
The Electoral Act is the legal backbone of Nigeria’s elections. Any amendment to it is expected to shape processes ranging from technology deployment and result transmission to candidate qualification and dispute resolution.
If the amendment bill is still undergoing legislative processes, why publish a timetable that may ultimately depend on a law that is not yet in force?
Observers are asking:
– Is INEC signaling that it will proceed under the 2022 Electoral Act regardless of pending reforms?
– Does the early timetable suggest limited confidence in the passage of the amendment?
– Or is this simply a constitutional obligation to provide early notice to political actors?
Legal Certainty vs. Legislative Fluidity
Under Nigeria’s constitutional framework, INEC operates based on existing law until any amendment is formally enacted and assented to by the President.
This means that, legally speaking, the Commission is empowered to plan based on the current Electoral Act.
However, critics argue that releasing a fixed timetable before the conclusion of legislative reforms may:
– Reduce flexibility, should the amended law introduce new procedures.
– Create confusion among political parties and stakeholders.
– Signal premature closure of policy debate.
Supporters, on the other hand, contend that electoral planning requires long lead times. Procurement, logistics, training, and voter education cannot wait indefinitely for legislative certainty.
The Political Optics.
Beyond legality lies perception.
Nigeria’s democratic journey has been marked by debates over transparency, electronic transmission of results, and electoral credibility. With amendments reportedly targeting improvements in these areas, stakeholders worry that the sequencing of events matters.
By acting ahead of legislative conclusion, INEC may unintentionally fuel speculation that the 2027 election will be conducted strictly under the 2022 framework, regardless of reform efforts.
Whether intentional or not, perception shapes public trust.
The Bigger Democratic Question.
This development raises a broader issue:
Should electoral reforms be concluded well ahead of the election cycle to avoid institutional friction?
Many democracies finalize electoral rules long before timelines are announced, ensuring that operational planning aligns with legislative intent.
In Nigeria’s case, the overlap between reform debate and election scheduling places both institutions, INEC and the National Assembly under scrutiny.
What Nigerians Deserve
at the heart of this issue is not bureaucracy, but credibility.
Citizens deserve:
– Clear communication from INEC explaining the legal basis for the timetable.
– Transparency from lawmakers on the status and direction of the amendment bill.
– Assurance from the executive on whether assent will be granted.
Democracy thrives not merely on procedure, but on confidence.
The message behind the move.
– Is INEC simply being proactive?
– Or is it quietly sending a message that 2027 will proceed under the current law?
Until clarity emerges, one thing is certain:
In matters of elections, timing is never neutral.
And in a democracy, questions are not acts of hostility. They are acts of vigilance.
Amb. Anderson Osiebe
Executive Director
HallowMace Foundation Africa
