The Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja on Thursday set aside a Federal High Court judgment that nullified some of the timelines issued by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) for the 2027 general elections.
In a unanimous judgment, a three-member panel of the appellate court upheld the appeal filed by INEC and ruled that the commission acted within its statutory powers when it released the revised timetable and schedule of activities for the elections.
The appellate court held that the Federal High Court failed to follow binding judicial precedents in its May 20 judgment.
It ruled that INEC’s revised timetable amounted to subsidiary legislation made pursuant to the Electoral Act, 2026, and therefore had the force of law.
According to the court, all the deadlines contained in the timetable fell within the provisions of the Electoral Act.
INEC had filed a nine-ground notice of appeal dated May 25, asking the appellate court to set aside the judgment delivered by Justice Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court in Abuja.
The commission argued that the lower court failed to determine a preliminary jurisdictional objection raised against the suit instituted by the Youth Party.
INEC maintained that the party’s action was hypothetical and academic and that the trial court’s failure to rule on the jurisdictional questions amounted to a denial of fair hearing.
It also argued that the Youth Party lacked the legal standing to institute and maintain the suit.
The commission, consequently, asked the Court of Appeal to allow its appeal, set aside the lower court’s judgment, and strike out the party’s case.
In its judgment, the appellate court agreed that INEC possessed the authority to prescribe timelines for the orderly conduct of elections.
It held that the commission’s election timetable was not merely an administrative document but a form of subsidiary legislation issued under the powers granted to it by the Electoral Act.
The panel ruled that such subsidiary legislation carried the same legal force as the principal legislation, provided that it remained within the scope of the Act.
The court consequently upheld the deadlines set by INEC for party primaries, submission of candidates’ details, withdrawal and substitution of ccandidates,and other activities leading to the 2027 polls.
Justice Umar had earlier ruled that INEC could not prescribe shorter timelines than those expressly stated in the Electoral Act.
The judgment followed a suit filed by the Youth Party challenging deadlines in the revised timetable.
The party had argued that INEC’s powers to receive notices of party primaries, monitor the exercises and collect candidates’ particulars did not extend to prescribing when political parties must conduct their primaries.
The lower court agreed and invalidated the deadlines set by the commission for the conduct of primaries and submission of candidates’ names.
Justice Umar also set aside INEC’s May 10 deadline requiring political parties to submit their membership registers and databases as a condition for participating in the elections.
The Federal High Court had relied on Section 29(1) of the Electoral Act, which requires political parties to submit the names and particulars of their candidates not later than 120 days before an election.
It held that INEC could not lawfully reduce the statutory period by prescribing an earlier deadline in its timetable.
The court also ruled that political parties were only required to notify INEC at least 21 days before holding primaries, congresses, or conventions.
“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,” the lower court had held.
Justice Umar had further held that INEC could not abridge the period permitted by Section 31 of the Electoral Act for the withdrawal and substitution of candidates.
The provision allows political parties to withdraw or replace candidates not later than 90 days before an election.
The trial court also held that INEC could not publish the final list of candidates earlier than the 60-day minimum period prescribed under Section 32 of the Act.
INEC challenged those findings, arguing that election activities were sequential and required clearly defined administrative deadlines to prevent disruption of the electoral process.
