Appeal Court Overturns Landmark Victory for Parties, Restores INEC’s 2027 Poll Schedule

…Rules Youth Party Lacked Locus to Challenge Guidelines

By Jeremy Fregene
The Court of Appeal in Abuja has overturned the landmark Federal High Court judgment that nullified key provisions of the Independent National Electoral Commission’s (INEC) timetable for the 2027 general elections, restoring the electoral body’s guidelines and handing it a major legal victory ahead of the polls.

In a unanimous judgment delivered on Thursday, the appellate court set aside the May 20 decision of the Federal High Court, holding that the Youth Party (YP), which instituted the suit against INEC, lacked the legal standing to challenge the commission’s guidelines.

The lead judgment, prepared by Justice Adebukola Banjoko and read by Justice Okon Abang, held that the party failed to demonstrate how INEC’s guidelines adversely affected either its primary elections or the submission of its candidates for the 2027 elections.

The three-member panel further ruled that the trial judge, Justice Mohammed Umar, fell into “gross errors” by entertaining the suit and nullifying portions of INEC’s timetable, leading to what it described as a miscarriage of justice.

The decision effectively restores the election timetable earlier issued by INEC and clears the way for the commission to implement its preparations for the 2027 general elections.

The appellate court’s judgment marks a dramatic reversal of the Federal High Court ruling delivered on May 20, which KTH Daily reported as a landmark victory for political parties and internal democracy.

In that judgment, Justice Mohammed Umar held that INEC exceeded its statutory powers by imposing restrictive deadlines that were inconsistent with provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026.

The court struck down several key deadlines in INEC’s Revised Timetable and Schedule of Activities, including those relating to the conduct of party primaries, submission of membership registers, nomination of candidates, withdrawal and substitution of candidates, publication of final candidate lists and campaign schedules.

Justice Umar had ruled that political parties were entitled under the Electoral Act to submit particulars of candidates up to 120 days before an election, while candidate substitutions and withdrawals could lawfully take place up to 90 days before polling.

He further held that INEC lacked the legal authority to shorten those timelines through administrative guidelines, insisting that statutory rights created by the Electoral Act could not be overridden by directives issued by the electoral commission.

The judgment was widely hailed by political parties, aggrieved aspirants and advocates of internal party democracy, who argued that INEC’s compressed timetable encouraged candidate imposition, fuelled intra-party disputes and triggered avoidable litigation.

However, dissatisfied with the ruling, INEC filed an appeal on May 25 through its lead counsel, Dr. Alex Izinyon (SAN), raising nine grounds of appeal.

The commission argued that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit because it was hypothetical and academic and complained that the trial court failed to determine the issue before proceeding to invalidate its guidelines.

INEC also contended that the lower court denied it fair hearing and urged the Court of Appeal to set aside the judgment and restore its election timetable.

In upholding the appeal, the appellate court agreed with INEC that the Youth Party had failed to establish a sufficient legal interest to challenge the guidelines, holding that the party neither demonstrated any injury nor showed how the timetable interfered with its participation in the electoral process.

The judgment now restores INEC’s authority to implement its guidelines for party primaries, submission of membership registers, nomination of candidates and other activities leading to the 2027 general elections, bringing to an end—at least for now—the legal uncertainty created by the Federal High Court’s earlier decision.

Political observers fear that this ruling will have significant implications for political parties already preparing for the 2027 elections, particularly those that had hoped the earlier High Court judgment would reopen timelines for primaries, candidate substitutions and internal reconciliation exercises.