INEC appeals judgment against election guidelines, seeks stay of execution

From Godwin Tsa,  Abuja

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has asked the Abuja division of the Court of Appeal to set aside the judgment of the Federal High Court, which nullified critical portions of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC)’s revised timetable and schedule of activities for the 2027 general elections.

INEC, in a motion on notice attached to the appeal, prayed the court for an order staying the execution and/or further execution of the judgment of the high court delivered on May 20, 2026, pending the hearing and determination of the appeal it filed against the judgment at the Court of Appeal.

Last week, Justice Muhammed Umar of the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja nullified guidelines issued by INEC directing political parties to submit their membership registers and databases by May 10 as a condition for participation in the 2027 general elections.

Justice Mohammed Umar, in a far-reaching decision, held that INEC exceeded its statutory powers when it imposed timelines that effectively abridged periods expressly guaranteed under the Electoral Act 2026.

The court consequently nullified portions of INEC’s revised electoral timetable relating to the conduct of party primaries, submission of candidates’ particulars, withdrawal and substitution of candidates, publication of the final list of candidates, and campaign deadlines.

The court was unequivocal that while INEC possesses supervisory and monitoring powers over political parties under the Electoral Act, such powers do not extend to prescribing restrictive timelines inconsistent with the express provisions of the law itself.

But in the appeal dated May 25, 2026, filed by INEC through its counsel, Chief Alex Izinyon, SAN, the electoral umpire prayed the court to set aside the judgment.

Apart from praying the court to set aside the judgment, the Senior Advocate also asked the court to stay the execution of the judgment.

In the appeal, the electoral umpire raised nine grounds of appeal.

INEC argued that the high court erred in law when it failed to pronounce on the jurisdictional issue of the suit being hypothetical and academic, which failure occasioned a denial of fair hearing to the Appellant.

Chief Izinyon, in the appeal, said the lower court erred in law when it held: “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 its valid primaries which such political party intend 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, or any conference or meeting convened for the election of its executive committees, other governing bodies or 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 stipulated by the Electoral Act, 2026. See Section 82(1) of the Electoral Act, 2026.”

He said the judgment of the trial court is against the weight of evidence placed before it, and therefore prayed the court for an order allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment delivered by the trial Federal High Court sitting in Abuja.

He also prayed for an order of the court striking out the suit, as the respondent lacks the locus standi to institute and maintain the same, describing the suit as academic.