The Movement for Credible Election (MCE) has openly faulted the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) for appealing the recent Federal High Court judgment that nullified parts of its Timetable and Schedule of Activities for the 2027 General Elections.
MCE warns that INEC’s insistence on challenging the recent declaratory judgment of Hon. Justice Umar, which nullified compressed timelines in its 2027 election timetable, will erode public trust in the commission’s neutrality as an electoral umpire.
The group made this position in a statement issued on Thursday in reaction to INEC’s reported decision to challenge the judgment.
The statement was jointly signed by Bugaje as chairman, Ezekwesili as co-chairman, Magoro as deputy chairman and Okunniyi as head of the national secretariat of the Movement for Credible Election.
“Justice Umar’s ruling is declaratory. It doesn’t impose new obligations on INEC; it merely restates the clear provision of Section 29 of the Electoral Act, which allows political parties to submit their final list of candidates not later than 120 days before the election.
“A declaratory judgment cannot be “stayed.” Attempting to appeal such a judgment raises the question of whether the Commission is seeking to overturn the law itself instead of clarifying its application and in whose interest,” the statement read.
According to MCE, INEC doesn’t require early submission of candidates’ names.
“INEC prints ballot papers using party names and logos, not the names of candidates. There’s therefore no operational basis for compelling political parties to conclude primaries in May or submit candidate lists months earlier than the law requires.
“An unnecessarily early timeline creates avoidable pressure on political parties, undermines internal democracy and increases the risk of procedural errors that will later fuel pre‑election litigations.”
The Movement maintained that INEC’s credibility depends on remaining neutral, saying that public trust is the most valuable asset of any electoral umpire.
“When INEC becomes a litigant against political parties over a timetable issue, it risks being perceived as an interested party rather than a neutral regulator.
“Such perceptions – even if unintended- can weaken trust and confidence among political actors and voters ahead of the 2027 elections.”
The association warns that public confidence is already dangerously low, stressing that recent data underscores the significance of this concern.
“According to Afrobarometer’s 2023 survey, only 23% of Nigerians expressed trust in INEC, meaning more than three‑quarters of citizens reported little or no confidence in the Commission.
“That’s an electoral emergency. At a time when the country is already anxious about preparations for the 2027 elections, INEC should be taking every possible step to rebuild public trust – not engaging in actions that risk pushing trust in the institution toward complete collapse.
“An appeal on a matter where the law is already clear sends the wrong signal to a public whose faith in the electoral process is already dangerously low.
It also warned that INEC’s mandate is to enforce the law and not to contest it.
“INEC is required to implement the law impartially. Appealing a judgment that merely affirms [and clarifies] the Electoral Act may be interpreted as the Commission taking sides.
“This perception alone can damage the legitimacy of the electoral process.
While urging INEC to accept the judgment and focus on delivering credible elections, MCE said, “Accept Justice Umar’s judgment, align its Timetable and Schedule of Activities with Section 29 of the Electoral Act, and focus its energy on delivering credible, inclusive, and timely elections.”
“The law is clear and INEC must be seen to obey it as the Commission’s legitimacy derives from public trust, flowing from its neutrality, and fairness — not from acting like a political stakeholder with vested interests in how parties organize themselves internally.
“An umpire that expresses partisan interest ceases to be an umpire but interested stakeholder
“What public good is served by deliberately abridging electoral timelines and shrinking democratic participation windows in ways that disproportionately suffocate young, growing, reform-oriented alternative political parties?
“Why would an electoral commission in a democracy appear more interested in administrative convenience than in expanding political inclusion and participation?
“Nigeria cannot claim to be practicing democracy while its electoral management body imposes electoral bottlenecks capable of strangulating emerging choices before they reach the ballot.”
