Follow Us on Google
From Godwin Tsa Abuja
The Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja yesterday vacated the judgment that had nullified the timelines issued by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) for the conduct of the 2027 general elections.
Justice Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court had, in the judgment under appeal, invalidated the timeline INEC issued for the conduct of party primaries and the nomination of candidates. The trial court also set aside INEC’s May 10 deadline requiring political parties to submit a register and database of their members as a condition for participating in the general elections.
The Federal High Court had held that the timeframe INEC imposed for political parties to conduct primaries and to submit, withdraw, or replace candidates’ names and particulars was inconsistent with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026.
That judgment followed a suit by the Youth Party (YP) seeking to compel INEC to comply with the Electoral Act 2026’s 120-day pre-election deadline for the submission of party registers and candidates’ personal particulars. INEC was the sole defendant in the suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/517/2016.
But in a unanimous decision, a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal upheld as meritorious the appeal INEC filed against the Federal High Court judgment delivered on May 20.
The appellate court held that the trial court failed to follow binding precedents, noting that INEC’s Revised Timetable for the general elections is, in law, subsidiary legislation to the Electoral Act, 2026, and therefore carries the same force of law as the Act itself. It held that INEC acted within its statutory powers, and that every deadline in the Revised Timetable fell within the ambit of the Electoral Act.
In its notice of appeal dated May 25, INEC raised nine grounds urging the appellate court to vacate the High Court judgment.
Beyond arguing that the trial court erred by failing to determine a jurisdictional issue it had raised, INEC contended that YP’s suit was hypothetical and academic, and that the trial court’s failure to pronounce on the issues amounted to a denial of fair hearing to INEC as appellant.
INEC also faulted the trial court’s interpretation of Sections 29(1), 82, and 84 of the Electoral Act, 2026.
It argued that while Section 29(1) requires political parties to submit the names of candidates emerging from valid primaries not later than 120 days before the general election, and parties are required only to notify INEC 21 days before holding primaries, congresses, or conventions, INEC is not thereby mandated to impose its own timeframe for the conduct of those primaries provided parties still submit within the 120-day window under Section 82(1).
INEC further argued that the trial court’s verdict ran against the weight of evidence before it, and asked the Court of Appeal to set aside the judgment. It also urged the court to strike out YP’s case for lack of locus standi to institute and maintain what it described as a merely academic action.
YP, for its part, had asked the trial court to declare that, on a proper interpretation of Sections 29, 82, and 84(1) of the Electoral Act, 2026, INEC’s power to receive notice of party primaries and candidates’ particulars and its duty to attend, observe, and monitor such primaries does not extend to fixing or prescribing the timetable within which parties conduct their primaries for the 2027 general elections.
