INEC Heads to Appeal Court on 9 Grounds – Seeks to Void Judgment Nullifying 2027 Timetable

INEC Heads to Appeal Court on 9 Grounds – Seeks to Void Judgment Nullifying 2027 Timetable

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has formally petitioned the Abuja Court of Appeal to overturn the verdict that nullified the dates it provided for the 2027 general elections, while also requesting a stay of execution of the judgment pending the resolution of its appeal. In a legal move that has thrown the 2027 election calendar into uncertainty, INEC filed a notice of appeal on May 25, 2026, through its team of attorneys led by Dr. Alex Izinyon, SAN. The commission raised nine grounds of appeal urging the appellate court to consider and vacate the May 20 ruling of the Federal High Court in Abuja. The judgment, delivered by Justice Mohammed Umar, had nullified key aspects of INEC’s timetable, including deadlines for party primaries, submission of candidates’ particulars, withdrawal and substitution of candidates, publication of final candidate lists, and campaign schedules. The lower court held that INEC lacked the statutory power to “fix or prescribe the timeframe within which political parties may conduct their primary elections for the purpose of nominating candidates for the 2027 general elections.”

In its appeal, INEC contended that the high court erred in law by failing to resolve a jurisdictional question it raised before the substantive hearing. The commission argued that the legal action initiated by the Youth Party (YP) against it was not only hypothetical but also academic in nature. INEC maintained that the trial court’s reluctance to make pronouncements on the jurisdictional issues denied the appellant a fair hearing. The commission further argued that the trial court erred in law when it interpreted Sections 29(1), 82, and 84 of the Electoral Act, 2026 in a manner that contradicted the clear wording of the statute.

INEC provided its own interpretation of the relevant sections of the Electoral Act, 2026, arguing that the lower court got it wrong. According to the commission, Section 29(1) of the Electoral Act, 2026 mandates political parties to submit the names of candidates in prescribed forms – of candidates who emerged from their valid primaries – not later than 120 days before the date of the general election. Furthermore, INEC argued that what is actually required of political parties under the Electoral Act, 2026, is to notify the commission 21 days before holding their primaries, congresses, or conventions – whether for the election of executive committees, other governing bodies, or 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 stated in its appeal. The commission insisted that the verdict of the trial court was against the weight of evidence that was placed before it by the parties. Consequently, INEC urged the appellate court to grant the appeal and set aside the judgment in its entirety.

READ ALSO:

• ‘INEC-Level Logistics’ – ADC Admits It Wasn’t Ready for 2027 Nationwide Primaries
• JAMB Sets Date for 2026 UTME Mop-Up, Directs Candidates to Reprint Slips
• DR Congo: Gunmen Storm Ebola Treatment Hospital, Demand Relatives’ Bodies

Beyond the substantive issues, INEC also attacked the legal standing (locus standi) of the Youth Party (YP) to initiate and maintain the action. The commission described the suit as “purely academic” and argued that the YP lacked the requisite legal right to bring the complaint in the first place. INEC urged the Court of Appeal to dismiss YP’s complaint on this ground, arguing that only parties with a direct stake in the electoral process should be allowed to challenge the commission’s constitutionally derived powers to organize and supervise elections.

The Federal High Court’s judgment, which INEC is now appealing, made several key declarations that shook the electoral landscape. The court declared that INEC does not possess the statutory power to publish the final list of candidates for the 2027 general election before the 60-day minimum period prescribed by law. It also ruled that INEC cannot fix campaign activities to end two days before the election, as this is inconsistent with Section 98 of the Electoral Act, 2026. Additionally, the court held that the timeframe prescribed by INEC for submission of membership registers for the conduct of primary elections is not applicable to primary elections conducted for the purpose of replacing withdrawn candidates. The court effectively ruled that INEC had exceeded its statutory mandate by imposing restrictive timelines that abridged periods expressly guaranteed under the Electoral Act, 2026.

As part of its appeal, INEC has also filed a motion for stay of execution of the lower court’s judgment. The commission argues that allowing the judgment to stand while the appeal is pending would disrupt the carefully planned sequence of electoral activities and potentially throw the 2027 general elections into confusion. If granted, the stay of execution would suspend the lower court’s ruling, effectively restoring INEC’s original timetable pending the final determination of the appeal by the Court of Appeal.

The appeal has placed opposition parties in a difficult position. However, the African Democratic Congress (ADC) – which recently admitted it was unprepared for INEC-level logistics in conducting nationwide primaries – says it anticipated the commission’s legal move. Speaking with The Guardian, ADC National Publicity Secretary Bolaji Abdullahi revealed that the party deliberately chose not to act on the lower court’s judgment because they regarded it as a “booby trap”. “We expected it, and that was the reason we did not shift our primaries. We regarded the judgment as a booby trap in the first instance,” Abdullahi said. “However, our disposition to that judgment does not prejudice the fact that INEC is not doing the right thing. We will do everything possible to ensure that Nigerians have a strong alternative government of their choice next year, one that will reshape the country.”

READ ALSO:

• Troops Rescue 92 Kidnapped Civilians, Defuse 3 IEDs in Borno
• Police Reject ₦500m Bribe, Seize 425 Bags of Suspected Canadian Loud Worth ₦7.8bn
• NSCDC Seals Chinese-Linked Steel Company, Arrests 12 Over Railway Track Vandalism

The Social Democratic Party (SDP) also reacted to INEC’s appeal, with its National Secretary, Olu Agunloye, stating that while the commission has the constitutional right to appeal, “it will meet the whole of Nigeria in court.” Agunloye added that it had become obvious that INEC was “working not for Nigerians, but in the interest of one individual” – an apparent reference to the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

However, Rotimi Oyekanmi, the immediate past spokesman of former INEC Chairman, defended the commission’s decision to challenge the judgment. He argued that the ruling questioned INEC’s constitutional powers to organize and supervise elections. “The first function is to organise, undertake and supervise all elections into the offices of President, Vice President, Governor, Deputy Governor, as well as membership of the Senate, House of Representatives and state Houses of Assembly,” Oyekanmi said. He explained that extensive planning and consultations with political parties and stakeholders usually precede the release of any election timetable by the commission. “Therefore, any attempt to compel the commission to alter timelines of activities in the 2027 election timetable should not be taken lightly because of the constitutional and electoral implications involved,” he added.

With INEC’s appeal now pending before the Court of Appeal, the electoral calendar for the 2027 general elections remains uncertain. The commission’s motion for stay of execution, if granted, would suspend the lower court’s ruling while the appeal is being heard. For opposition parties like the ADC, which are already grappling with leadership crises and the logistical nightmare of conducting nationwide primaries, the legal battle adds another layer of uncertainty to an already turbulent political season. Legal analysts suggest that the Court of Appeal may expedite hearing of the matter given the time-sensitive nature of electoral timelines. A quick resolution is expected, as any prolonged uncertainty could disrupt party primaries and other pre-election activities.

INEC Heads to Appeal Court on 9 Grounds – Seeks to Void Judgment Nullifying 2027 Timetable