The commission also filed a simultaneous application for a stay of execution of the judgment, seeking to suspend its effect pending the determination of the appeal.
The notice of appeal, dated May 25, was filed through a legal team led by Dr. Alex Izinyon, and contains nine grounds upon which INEC is urging the Court of Appeal to intervene.
The appeal follows a judgment delivered on May 20 by Justice Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court in Abuja in suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/517/2026, filed by the Youth Party against INEC as sole defendant. In the judgment, the court held that INEC’s revised timetable and schedule of activities for the 2027 general elections was inconsistent with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026, and set it aside.
The court ruled that the powers granted to INEC under Sections 29, 82, and 84(1) of the Electoral Act do not extend to fixing timelines for party primaries, stating that its role is limited to receiving notices of primaries, monitoring the exercises, and handling candidate documentation.
The affected timelines include those for party primaries, submission of candidates’ particulars, withdrawal and substitution of candidates, publication of final candidate lists, and campaign deadlines, all of which the court found to be inconsistent with the Electoral Act.
In its appeal, INEC argued that the trial court erred in law by failing to determine a jurisdictional objection it raised before delivering judgment, a failure it said amounted to a denial of fair hearing.
The commission also challenged the foundation of the suit, insisting that the Youth Party lacked the locus standi, the legal right, to institute and maintain the action, and that the case was hypothetical and academic in nature and ought to have been struck out at the outset.
On the merits of the ruling, INEC argued that Justice Umar misinterpreted the relevant provisions of the Electoral Act, insisting that the law only requires political parties to notify the commission 21 days before conducting primaries and to submit candidates’ particulars not later than 120 days before an election.
The commission maintained that these provisions do not strip it of all scheduling authority, contrary to the court’s finding, and that the decision was against the weight of evidence before the court.
INEC therefore urged the Court of Appeal to allow the appeal, set aside the judgment in its entirety, and strike out the Youth Party’s suit for want of locus standi.
What do you think about this?
Drop your opinion in the comment section.
FOLLOW US & Share this with someone who needs to see this.
