The Independent National Electoral Commission has challenged a Federal High Court judgment that nullified parts of its revised timetable and guidelines for the 2027 general elections.

The electoral commission also asked the court to suspend the enforcement of the ruling pending the determination of its appeal.

Justice Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court had, in a judgment delivered on May 20, voided aspects of INEC’s election timetable after finding portions of the schedule inconsistent with provisions of the Electoral Act 2026.

READ ALSO:

In response, the commission filed a notice of appeal through its lawyer, Alex Izinyon (SAN), urging the appellate court to overturn the decision.

INEC further submitted a motion seeking an order staying the execution and/or further execution of the judgment until the appeal is heard and determined.

The electoral body argued that the trial court failed to address its objection that the suit was hypothetical and academic, insisting that the omission denied it fair hearing.

According to INEC, the lower court also adopted what it described as a restrictive interpretation of Sections 29(1), 82 and 84 of the Electoral Act 2026.

The commission maintained that the law did not impose the narrow timeframe interpretation relied upon by the court.

“There was no evidence of imposition of a timeframe for political parties to conduct their primaries,” INEC argued in its appeal.

It further stated that the court failed to distinguish between the phrase “not later than 120 days” under Section 29(1) of the Electoral Act and what it called “the maximum latitude” being canvassed by the respondent.

INEC also faulted the court’s interpretation of Section 151 of the Electoral Act 2026, which empowers the commission to issue regulations and guidelines for elections.

The commission contended that the judgment ignored earlier decisions of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal which, according to it, affirmed INEC’s authority to determine election schedules and guidelines.

Among the authorities cited were, NDP v. INEC (2012) and FJP v. INEC (2019), which the commission said were binding precedents relevant to the case.

INEC further argued that the judgment was against the weight of evidence presented before the court and wrongly concluded that its revised timetable unlawfully restricted political activities ahead of the 2027 elections.

The suit was reportedly instituted by the Youth Party, challenging the legality of INEC’s revised timetable and schedule of activities for the next general election.

However, following the judgment, the Youth Party publicly distanced itself from the case, claiming it did not authorise the legal action, although no formal application has yet been filed before the court to that effect.