POLITICS
Court Sets Aside Judgement Nullifying INEC’s 2027 Election Timetable
-
Court of Appeal overturns Federal High Court judgment that nullified INEC’s revised timetable for the 2027 general elections, restoring all timelines and deadlines.
-
Appellate court declares INEC’s election timetable is subsidiary legislation with the same force of law as the Electoral Act 2026 and validates every deadline contained in it.
-
Court rules the electoral commission acted within its statutory powers in fixing timelines for party primaries, candidate nominations, substitutions, and other pre-election activities.
-
Judgment reverses the Youth Party’s earlier legal victory, reaffirming INEC’s authority to regulate the electoral process and providing certainty for political parties ahead of the 2027 polls.
July 16 , () — The Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja has set aside the judgment of the Federal High Court that nullified the Independent National Electoral Commission’s (INEC) Revised Timetable and Schedule of Activities for the 2027 general elections, affirming that the electoral umpire acted within the powers granted to it under the Electoral Act 2026.
In a unanimous judgment delivered on Thursday by a three-member panel, the appellate court allowed INEC’s appeal and vacated the May 20 judgment of the Federal High Court, which had invalidated key timelines issued by the Commission for political parties ahead of the next general elections.
The Court held that the trial court failed to follow binding judicial precedents in reaching its decision.
It further ruled that INEC’s Revised Timetable is subsidiary legislation made pursuant to the Electoral Act 2026 and therefore carries the same force and effect as the principal legislation.
According to the appellate court, the electoral commission validly exercised its statutory powers in issuing the timetable, stressing that every deadline contained in the revised schedule falls within the provisions of the Electoral Act 2026.
The judgment effectively restores all timelines earlier fixed by INEC for the conduct of party primaries, submission of candidates’ personal particulars, withdrawal and substitution of candidates, publication of the final list of candidates, and other pre-election activities ahead of the 2027 polls.
INEC’s Grounds of Appeal
INEC approached the appellate court through a notice of appeal dated May 25, urging it to overturn the High Court’s decision on nine grounds.
The Commission argued that the trial court failed to determine a jurisdictional objection it had raised before proceeding to the substantive issues, thereby denying it a fair hearing.
It also maintained that the suit filed by the Youth Party (YP), which challenged the legality of the revised timetable, was hypothetical and academic and ought to have been struck out.
INEC further contended that the trial court erred in law when it held that Sections 29(1), 82, and 84 of the Electoral Act 2026 did not empower the Commission to prescribe timelines for political parties to conduct their primaries.
According to the electoral body, although Section 29(1) requires political parties to submit the names and particulars of candidates not later than 120 days before an election, the Act equally empowers INEC to coordinate and regulate the electoral process by issuing a timetable that ensures the orderly conduct of elections.
The Commission also argued that the Federal High Court’s decision was against the weight of evidence before it and urged the appellate court to set aside the judgment and strike out the Youth Party’s suit for lack of locus standi, insisting that the case was merely academic.
Background
The dispute arose from a suit instituted by the Youth Party, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/517/2026, in which the party sought a declaration that INEC lacked the statutory authority to prescribe the period within which political parties must conduct their primaries for nominating candidates for the 2027 general elections.
The party argued that, upon a proper interpretation of Sections 29, 82, and 84(1) of the Electoral Act 2026, INEC’s powers to receive notices of party primaries and monitor such exercises do not extend to fixing or prescribing timelines for the conduct of those primaries.
Delivering judgment on May 20, Justice Mohammed Umar agreed with the Youth Party and declared that INEC could not lawfully abridge the statutory timelines provided under the Electoral Act by prescribing earlier deadlines in its election timetable.
The court held that Section 29(1) of the Act gives political parties up to 120 days before an election to submit the personal particulars of nominated candidates and that INEC lacked the power to shorten that period.
Justice Umar also ruled that Section 31 of the Electoral Act permits political parties to withdraw and substitute candidates not later than 90 days before an election, making it unlawful for INEC to impose an earlier deadline.
Similarly, the trial court held that Section 32 of the Electoral Act does not empower INEC to publish the final list of candidates earlier than the statutory minimum period of 60 days before an election.
The Federal High Court consequently invalidated INEC’s timelines for the conduct of party primaries, nomination of candidates, withdrawal and substitution of candidates, and also set aside the Commission’s May 10 deadline requiring political parties to submit their membership registers and databases as a condition for participation in the 2027 general elections.
