Court Reserves Judgment In INEC 2027 Election Timetable Case

The Court of Appeal in Abuja has reserved judgment in two appeals challenging the legality of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC)’s timetable for the 2027 general elections.

A three-member panel of justices, led by Justice Adebukola Bankole, announced after hearing arguments that the date for delivering judgment would be communicated to all parties involved.

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

The YPN secured a favourable ruling from Justice Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court in Abuja, who nullified the election timetable issued by INEC. In a separate judgment, Justice James Omotosho partly ruled in favour of the SDP while also granting some reliefs in favour of INEC.

Dissatisfied with both judgments, INEC approached the Court of Appeal, seeking to overturn Justice Umar’s ruling entirely and set aside the aspect of Justice Omotosho’s judgment that restricted the commission’s authority over election scheduling.

During the hearing, INEC’s legal team, led by Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Dr. Alex Izinyon alongside two other SANs, argued that the commission acted within the powers granted to it by the Constitution and the Electoral Act.

Izinyon maintained that the commission has the constitutional responsibility to organise, supervise and conduct elections, including issuing guidelines and timelines for the electoral process.

“The constitution, specifically, empowered INEC to organise, supervise and undertake elections and other political activities as provided and that the timetable provided is in consonance with the power donated by the 1999 Constitution and the enabling act for INEC to do what it did in issuing elections timetables.

“The trial court erred in law because it failed to interpret, using the Supreme Court authorities and Court of Appeal decisions on the power already donated by the 1999 Constitution to INEC to arrange for elections including pre-election matters.

“Supreme Court and Court of Appeal have held that INEC has the power to organise and supervise elections and this include timetable for elections to carry out political activities preceding the elections.

“The trial court failed to give effect to the phrase ‘not later than 120 days and not more than 90 days’, which was a subject of contention at the trial court.

“And that not less than 120 days means it should not be more than but it can be less than but for the court to say that it must be exactly 120 days, was too mathematical and not the intendment of the lawmakers as any of the activities can be done before the 120 days and not more than.

“For the trial court to say it must be exactly 120 days is a mechanical application of the statute which is contrary to the decisions of the apex court and the Court of Appeal.”

He further argued that the same interpretation should apply to the constitutional provision relating to the 90-day timeline.

Izinyon also submitted that the reliefs granted by the lower courts were declaratory in nature and should not have been awarded because the respondents failed to provide sufficient evidence that they had suffered any injury or had even commenced activities affected by the timetable.

“There was no evidence by way of affidavit to show that they have commenced any primary or taken steps or that they have suffered any injury.

“Therefore the court ought not to have granted any relief,” the senior lawyer said.

Speaking on the second appeal involving the SDP, Izinyon explained that while Justice Omotosho granted reliefs to both the political party and INEC, the commission was appealing the aspect of the judgment directing it to adjust the election timetable.

“INEC appealed part of the judgement in that case which limits their powers by saying that the days were short by a few number of days that INEC should go back and rectify this,” he added.

Before the substantive appeals were argued, Izinyon also presented three preliminary applications before the appellate court.

One of the applications urged the court to bar the Youth Party of Nigeria from responding to the appeal on the grounds that it failed to file its respondent’s brief within the time allowed after receiving INEC’s appeal documents.

According to him, Paragraph 13 of the Court of Appeal Practice Direction on pre-election matters does not permit an extension of time for filing such briefs.

When questioned by the panel, counsel to the YPN, Akinwale Irokosun, admitted that no response had been filed to the application.

The appellate court reserved its ruling on the preliminary application to be delivered alongside the final judgment in the appeal.

Izinyon also opposed a separate application by Irokosun seeking additional time to file the respondent’s brief, arguing that the rules governing pre-election appeals leave no room for such an extension after the prescribed deadline has expired.

He cited several Supreme Court and Court of Appeal decisions to support his position, insisting that the court lacked discretion to grant the request.

With arguments concluded, the Court of Appeal reserved judgment in both appeals, with the date for the ruling to be communicated to all parties.