The Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja has overturned the judgment of the Federal High Court that nullified the timelines issued by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) for activities leading to the 2027 general elections.
In a unanimous judgment delivered on Thursday by a three-member panel, the appellate court held that the appeal filed by INEC had merit and consequently set aside the decision of the lower court delivered on May 20.
The appellate court ruled that the Federal High Court failed to follow established judicial precedents in reaching its decision.
According to the court, the Revised Timetable issued by INEC for the conduct of the 2027 general elections qualifies as subsidiary legislation under the Electoral Act, 2026.
It held that such subsidiary legislation enjoys the same legal force as the principal Act and that INEC acted within the powers granted to it by law.
The court further held that every timeline contained in the electoral commission’s Revised Timetable complied with the provisions of the Electoral Act.
INEC had approached the Court of Appeal through a notice of appeal dated May 25, challenging the Federal High Court’s judgment on nine separate grounds.
Among its arguments, the electoral body contended that the trial court erred by failing to determine a fundamental issue relating to jurisdiction.
The commission also argued that the suit filed by the Youth Party (YP) was hypothetical, speculative and merely academic.
According to INEC, the failure of the trial court to pronounce on the jurisdictional issues amounted to a denial of its constitutional right to fair hearing.
The commission further challenged the lower court’s interpretation of Sections 29(1), 82 and 84 of the Electoral Act, 2026.
The Federal High Court had 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 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 those conclusions were inconsistent with both the law and the evidence placed before the court.
The commission therefore urged the Court of Appeal to set aside the judgment and dismiss the Youth Party’s suit.
It also requested an order striking out the case on the ground that the Youth Party lacked the legal standing to institute the action because the issues raised were purely academic.
The Federal High Court, presided over by Justice Mohammed Umar, had earlier invalidated INEC’s timetable relating to party primaries and the submission of candidates for the 2027 elections.
It also nullified the commission’s May 10 deadline directing political parties to submit their membership registers and databases as one of the conditions for participating in the elections.
Justice Umar held that the timelines prescribed by INEC for the conduct of party primaries, as well as the submission, withdrawal and substitution of candidates, were inconsistent with the Electoral Act, 2026.
The judgment followed a suit filed by the Youth Party, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/517/2016, in which INEC was listed as the sole defendant.
The Youth Party sought judicial interpretation of Sections 29, 82 and 84(1) of the Electoral Act, arguing that while INEC has powers to receive notices of party primaries and monitor them, it lacks authority to dictate when political parties must conduct those primaries.
The party asked the court to declare that INEC could not lawfully shorten the statutory timelines established under the Electoral Act.
Agreeing with the Youth Party, Justice Umar held that Section 29(1) of the Electoral Act, 2026 gives political parties up to 120 days before an election to submit the particulars of their candidates.
He therefore ruled that INEC lacked the authority to reduce that period through its election timetable.
The trial court also held that Section 31 of the Electoral Act permits political parties to withdraw and substitute candidates up to 90 days before an election and that INEC could not lawfully impose an earlier deadline.
In addition, Justice Umar ruled that under Section 32 of the Electoral Act, the commission could not publish the final list of candidates earlier than the statutory minimum period of 60 days before the election.
However, with Thursday’s decision, the Court of Appeal restored the legality of INEC’s Revised Timetable, reaffirming the commission’s authority to regulate the electoral process within the framework of the Electoral Act.
