Appeal Court Reserves Judgment in INEC’s Battle Over 2027 Election Timetable

The Court of Appeal in Abuja has reserved judgment in two high-profile appeals filed by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) over legal disputes surrounding the timetable and guidelines issued for the 2027 general elections.

A three-member panel of the appellate court, led by Justice Adebukola Bankole, announced on Wednesday that judgment had been reserved after hearing arguments from all parties. The court said a date for the ruling would be communicated later.

The appeals stem from separate lawsuits filed by the Youth Party of Nigeria (YPN) and the Social Democratic Party (SDP), both of which challenged the legality of INEC’s election timetable.

In one of the cases, Justice Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court in Abuja ruled in favour of the YPN and nullified the election guidelines issued by INEC. In the second case, Justice James Omotosho granted some of the reliefs sought by the SDP while also upholding certain powers of the electoral commission.

Dissatisfied with the decisions, INEC approached the Court of Appeal, seeking to overturn Justice Umar’s judgment entirely and set aside portions of Justice Omotosho’s ruling that it believes restrict its constitutional authority to manage elections.

During the hearing, INEC’s lead counsel, Dr. Alex Izinyon (SAN), argued that the commission acted within its constitutional and statutory powers when it released the election timetable and guidelines.

According to him, the 1999 Constitution and the Electoral Act clearly empower INEC to organise, supervise and conduct elections, including setting timelines for pre-election activities.

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

Izinyon argued that the trial courts adopted an overly rigid interpretation of the law by insisting on exact timelines rather than allowing flexibility within the limits provided by legislation.

“The courts applied the law too mechanically. The intention of the lawmakers was not to make the timelines mathematically fixed but to ensure activities fall within the prescribed period,” he submitted.

He further contended that the political parties failed to provide evidence showing they suffered any injury or disadvantage as a result of INEC’s timetable, insisting that the declaratory reliefs granted by the lower courts should not have been awarded.

The senior advocate also explained that INEC’s appeal against Justice Omotosho’s judgment was limited to aspects of the ruling that directed the commission to adjust certain timelines by a few days.

Before arguments on the substantive appeals, INEC filed several preliminary applications.

One of the applications sought to prevent the Youth Party of Nigeria from opposing the appeal on the grounds that it failed to file its respondent’s brief within the period stipulated by the Court of Appeal’s practice directions on pre-election matters.

Izinyon argued that the rules do not permit an extension of time once the deadline has expired.

Counsel to the YPN, Akinwale Irokosun, acknowledged before the court that the party had not filed a response to the application. He later sought an extension of time to regularise the brief, a move strongly opposed by INEC.

The appellate court reserved its decision on the preliminary applications and indicated that the rulings would be delivered alongside the main judgment.

The outcome of the appeals is expected to provide clarity on the scope of INEC’s powers in setting election timetables and managing pre-election activities ahead of the 2027 general elections.