Appeal Court reserves judgment in INEC’s dispute over 2027 election timetable

The Court of Appeal in Abuja on Wednesday reserved judgment in two appeals filed by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) challenging Federal High Court rulings that questioned aspects of the commission’s timetable and guidelines for the 2027 general elections.

A three-member panel of the appellate court, led by Justice Adebukola Bankole, said the date for the judgment would be communicated to the parties.

The appeals stem from separate suits filed by the Youth Party of Nigeria (YPN) and the Social Democratic Party (SDP), both of which challenged the legality of INEC’s timetable for political activities leading to the 2027 elections.

In one of the cases, Justice Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court nullified the election timetable after granting the reliefs sought by the YPN. In the second case, Justice James Omotosho granted some of the SDP’s claims while also upholding parts of INEC’s position.

Dissatisfied with the decisions, INEC approached the Court of Appeal, seeking to overturn Justice Umar’s judgment in its entirety and set aside portions of Justice Omotosho’s ruling that it said constrained the commission’s constitutional powers to conduct elections.

Arguing the appeals, INEC’s lead counsel, Alex Izinyon (SAN), submitted that the commission derives its authority from the 1999 Constitution and the Electoral Act to organise, supervise and regulate elections, including issuing election timetables and guidelines.

He argued that the trial courts failed to properly interpret constitutional provisions governing election timelines, particularly the requirement relating to activities to be conducted “not later than 120 days and not more than 90 days” before elections.

According to him, the lower courts adopted an unduly rigid interpretation by holding that certain activities must occur exactly 120 days before the elections, rather than recognising that the law allows them to be conducted within the prescribed period.

Izinyon also argued that the reliefs granted by the trial courts were declaratory in nature and should not have been awarded because the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that they had suffered any injury or commenced any electoral activities affected by the timetable.

In the appeal arising from the SDP suit, he contended that the lower court erred by directing INEC to adjust parts of its timetable, arguing that the judgment improperly limited the commission’s statutory discretion.

Before the substantive appeals were heard, the appellate court considered a number of preliminary applications.

INEC urged the court to discountenance the YPN’s defence on the grounds that the party failed to file its respondent’s brief within the timeline prescribed by the Court of Appeal’s Practice Directions for pre-election matters. Izinyon argued that the rules do not permit an extension of time once the deadline has elapsed.

Akinwale Irokosun, Counsel to the YPN, acknowledged that no response had been filed to the application and subsequently sought an extension of time to regularise the party’s brief.

The appellate court reserved its ruling on the preliminary applications to be delivered alongside its judgment on the substantive appeals.

The outcome of the appeals is expected to clarify the scope of INEC’s constitutional authority to issue election timetables and guidelines ahead of the 2027 general elections.