The Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja, on Thursday, set aside the judgment that nullified the timelines the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) issued for the 2027 general elections.
In a unanimous decision by a three-member panel, the appellate court upheld as meritorious, an appeal the electoral body filed to challenge the judgment the Federal High Court delivered on May 20.
According to the appellate court, the trial court failed to follow binding precedents, adding that the Revised Timetable the INEC issued for the general elections is legally considered subsidiary legislation to the 2026 Electoral Act.
It held that such subsidiary legislation has the same force of law as the Electoral Act, adding that the INEC acted within its statutory powers.
The appellate court maintained that every deadline in the Revised Timetable for the 2027 general elections fell within the ambit of the Electoral Act.
INEC had in its notice of appeal dated May 25, raised nine grounds it urged the appellate court to consider and vacate the high court judgment.
Aside from its contention that the high court erred in law when it failed to determine a jurisdictional issue it raised, INEC maintained that the legal action the Youth Party (YP) initiated against it was not only hypothetical but academic.
It argued that failure of the trial court to make pronouncements on the issues resulted in the denial of fair hearing to the Appellant.
More so, INEC insisted that the high court erred in law when it held that: “It is clear from the wordings of Sections 29(1), 82 and 84 of the Electoral Act, 2026, the following can be understood. Section 29(1) of the Electoral Act, 2026 mandates Political Parties to submit the names of candidates in prescribed forms of the candidates who emerged from their valid primaries which such a political party intends to sponsor at the elections, not later than 120 days before the date of the General Election.
“What is required of Political Parties to do under the Electoral Act, 2026 is to notify the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) 21 days before the holding of its primaries, congresses or conventions, days before the holding of its primaries, congresses or conventions, or any conference or meeting convened for the election of its executive committees, other governing bodies for nominating candidates.
“The Defendant is not mandated to impose a timeframe for political parties to conduct their primaries provided that it will be done and submitted not later than the 120 days provided by the Electoral Act, 2026. See Section 82(1) of the Electoral Act, 2026.”
INEC argued that the verdict of the trial court was against the weight of evidence that was placed before it by the parties.
It prayed the appellate court for an order allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment
The electoral body further urged the Court of Appeal to strike out YP’s case on the ground that it lacked the locus standi (legal right) to institute and maintain the action it said was merely academic.
It will be recalled that the high court had in the judgment that was delivered by Justice Mohammed Umar, invalidated the timeline the INEC issued for the conduct of primaries and the nomination of candidates.
The court also set aside INEC’s May 10 deadline requiring political parties to submit a register and database of all their members as a condition for qualifying to participate in the general elections.
It held that the time frame the Commission imposed for political parties to conduct their primaries and to submit, withdraw, or replace the names and particulars of their candidates for the general elections “is inconsistent with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026.”
The judgment followed YP’s suit to compel the electoral body to comply with the Electoral Act 2026’s 120-day pre-election deadline for submitting party registers and candidates’ personal particulars.
INEC was listed as the sole defendant in YP’s suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/517/2016.
The plaintiff had prayed the court to declare that, upon a proper consideration and interpretation of the provisions of Sections 29, 82, and 84(1) of the Electoral Act, 2026, the powers of INEC to receive notice of party primaries and the personal particulars of candidates, and its duty to attend, observe, and monitor such primaries, do not extend to fixing or prescribing the timetable within which political parties may conduct their primary elections for the purpose of nominating candidates for the 2027 general elections.
While agreeing with the YP, Justice Umar declared that in view of the provisions of Section 29(1) of the Electoral Act, 2026, which requires political parties to submit the personal particulars of their candidates not later than 120 days to an election, “INEC cannot lawfully abridge or limit that statutory period by prescribing a shorter timeframe in its 2027 election timetable.”
Likewise, the court held that in line with Section 31 of the Electoral Act 2026, which permits political parties to withdraw and substitute candidates not later than 90 days before the conduct of an election, INEC lacks the power to abridge or limit that statutory period by fixing an earlier deadline for the withdrawal and replacement of candidates in its 2027 election timetable. Politicsnews alerts
Justice Umar further held that, by the provisions of Section 32 of the Electoral Act, 2026, INEC does not possess the statutory power to publish the final list of candidates for the 2027 general election before the 60-day minimum period prescribed by law.
