The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has appealed the Federal High Court judgment voiding part of the election guidelines it released for the conduct of next year’s general elections.
In a judgment delivered last Wednesday, Justice Mohammed Umar annulled aspects of INEC’s timelines contained in the Revised Timetable for the 2027 polls that were found to be inconsistent with the Electoral Act 2026.
But the electoral umpire yesterday filed a motion on notice seeking an order staying the execution and/or further execution of the May 20 judgment pending the hearing and determination of its appeal.
In its notice of appeal filed by its counsel, Alex Izinyon (SAN), INEC faulted the judgment and prayed the appellate court to set it aside.
The commission, which raised nine grounds of appeal, contended, among others, that the Federal High Court judge erred in law by failing to pronounce on the jurisdictional issue that the suit was hypothetical and academic, a failure it said denied the commission a fair hearing.
INEC also faulted the trial court judge for holding that: “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/list of candidates in the prescribed forms who emerged from valid primaries and whom such political parties intend to sponsor at the elections not later than 120 days before the date of the general election.”
INEC argued that the interpretation of Sections 29(1), 82 and 84 of the Electoral Act, 2026 did not permit the narrow understanding adopted by the trial court.
It said: “There was no evidence of imposition of a timeframe for political parties to conduct their primaries.
“The court failed to distinguish the concept of ‘not later than 120 days’ provided under Section 29(1) of the Electoral Act, 2026 and the maximum latitude which the respondent (Youth Party) is insisting on.”
INEC appeals judgement voiding its election guidelines
The electoral body further contended that the judgment of the trial court was against the weight of evidence placed before it.
It said the trial court misdirected itself in law by failing to apply the provisions of Section 151 of the Electoral Act 2026 to the appellant’s case when it held thus: “It is to be noted that Section 151 of the Electoral Act, 2026 mandates the defendant to issue regulations, guidelines or manuals for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Electoral Act and for its administration.”
The commission also faulted the trial judge for granting the respondent’s reliefs without following the decisions of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, which it said had settled the issue of the commission’s power to fix election timetables in the cases of NDP v. INEC (2012) 14 NWLR (Pt.1319) 176 at 197 Para D and FJP v. INEC (2019) LPELR-49370-(CA).
According to INEC, the decisions are binding on the trial court because they are on all fours with the present case.
The commission added that the trial court erred in law when it held that the political activities for the 2027 general election had been restricted by the appellant’s Exhibit INEC 1 and consequently declared that the respondent’s suit had merit before granting all the declaratory reliefs sought.
The judgment arose from a suit allegedly filed by the Youth Party (YP), challenging the legality of INEC’s Revised Timetable and Schedule of Activities for the 2027 General Election.
INEC was the sole defendant in the suit.
After the judgment, however, the Youth Party denied authorizing the suit, although it has yet to back its claim with any formal application before the court.
