Abuja legal battle deepens over election timetable as INEC seeks reversal at Court of Appeal

Nigeria’s Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has filed a Notice of Appeal challenging a Federal High Court judgment that nullified portions of its revised guidelines for the 2027 general elections.

The appeal, lodged before the Court of Appeal, Abuja Judicial Division, follows a May 20 ruling by Justice Muhammed Umar of the Federal High Court in Abuja. The court had invalidated sections of INEC’s timetable requiring political parties to submit membership registers and databases by May 10 as a condition for participation in the 2027 elections.

The dispute emerged from a lawsuit filed by the Youth Party in suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/517/2026. The party argued that INEC’s directive unlawfully shortened timelines already provided under Section 29(1) of the Electoral Act 2026.

Justice Umar ruled that the electoral commission could not alter statutory timelines set by the Electoral Act for the submission of party records and candidates’ particulars. The court held that political parties retained the latitude granted by law and that administrative guidelines could not override legislative provisions.

INEC, however, is asking the appellate court to overturn the ruling entirely.

In its appeal dated May 25, the commission stated that it was dissatisfied with the judgment and sought orders setting aside the lower court’s decision nullifying portions of the revised election timetable.

INEC’s Core Arguments

The electoral body advanced nine grounds of appeal, focusing heavily on jurisdiction, statutory interpretation, and the scope of its regulatory powers under the Electoral Act.

A central plank of INEC’s argument is that the trial court failed to fully determine its preliminary objection. The commission argued that the court addressed only the issue of locus standi while failing to rule on whether the suit itself was hypothetical or academic. According to INEC, this omission amounted to a denial of fair hearing.

INEC also challenged the court’s finding that the Youth Party possessed sufficient legal standing to sue. While the lower court held that the party had the right to seek judicial redress, INEC argued that the affidavits filed did not establish a concrete personal injury or legal interest.

The commission further disputed the court’s interpretation of Section 29(1) of the Electoral Act 2026. INEC maintained that the law does not prohibit political parties from submitting candidates or records earlier than the statutory 120-day threshold before elections.

According to the commission, the timetable “did not impose unlawful deadlines but operated within statutory limits.”

INEC additionally relied on Section 151 of the Electoral Act, which empowers the commission to issue regulations, guidelines, and manuals necessary for implementing electoral provisions. The commission argued that the trial court acknowledged this authority but nevertheless reached what it described as an inconsistent conclusion by striking down portions of the timetable.

Broader Constitutional and Political Questions

The appeal raises wider constitutional questions about the balance between administrative discretion and statutory safeguards in Nigeria’s electoral system.

At the heart of the dispute is whether INEC’s operational authority allows it to introduce administrative deadlines earlier than those expressly outlined in legislation. The eventual appellate decision could shape how much procedural flexibility the commission holds ahead of major elections.

The case also highlights growing tensions between political parties and electoral regulators over compliance timelines, candidate submissions, and the administration of primaries.

INEC accused the trial court of ignoring binding appellate precedents, arguing that established Supreme Court and Court of Appeal authorities supported its position.

“By the doctrine of stare decisis, the learned trial judge was bound by the above cases which were cited to him, but he refused or failed to follow the same,” the commission argued in its filing.

What Happens Next

The Court of Appeal is expected to determine whether the Federal High Court correctly interpreted the Electoral Act and whether INEC exceeded its statutory authority in setting earlier administrative deadlines.

The outcome may significantly influence preparations for the 2027 general elections, particularly around party primaries, candidate submissions, and the commission’s broader regulatory powers.