The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has filed a Notice of Appeal against the judgment of the Federal High Court in Abuja which nullified part of the electoral guidelines issued by the commission for the conduct of the 2027 general elections.
The appeal, filed before the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal, seeks to overturn the judgment delivered on May 20, 2026, by Justice Muhammed G. Umar of the Federal High Court.
The lower court had ruled in favour of the Youth Party in a suit challenging INEC’s directive requiring political parties to submit their membership registers and databases by May 10, 2026, as part of preparations for the 2027 elections.
The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/517/2026 between the Youth Party and the Independent National Electoral Commission, questioned the legality of the commission’s revised timetable and electoral guidelines.
In his judgment, Justice Umar held that INEC lacked the powers to abridge or shorten the timeline already provided under Section 29(1) of the Electoral Act 2026 regarding the submission of candidates’ particulars and party membership records.
The court ruled that political parties were only required by law to submit such documents not later than 120 days before the election and that INEC could not lawfully impose an earlier deadline outside the statutory provisions.
The judgment effectively nullified the May 10 deadline earlier fixed by the commission for submission of party registers and candidate-related documents.
However, INEC, dissatisfied with the ruling, approached the appellate court seeking an order setting aside the entire judgment of the Federal High Court.
In the Notice of Appeal dated May 25, 2026, the electoral body stated that it was dissatisfied with the judgment delivered by Justice M.G. Umar and was therefore appealing against the decision before the Court of Appeal.
INEC’s appeal is predicated on nine grounds, challenging several findings and conclusions reached by the trial court.
According to the commission, the Federal High Court failed to properly determine critical jurisdictional issues raised in its preliminary objection before proceeding to decide the substantive matter.
INEC argued that the lower court denied it fair hearing by allegedly failing to pronounce on whether the suit filed by the Youth Party was hypothetical or academic in nature.
In one of the grounds of appeal, the commission stated that the learned trial judge erred in law by failing to address all jurisdictional objections raised before the court.
“The learned trial Judge erred in law when he failed to pronounce on the jurisdictional issue of the suit being hypothetical and academic, which failure occasioned denial of fair hearing to the appellant,” INEC stated.
The commission maintained that it had raised two major jurisdictional issues before the trial court — the issue of locus standi and whether the suit was academic — but the court allegedly ruled only on one while ignoring the other.
INEC also challenged the trial court’s finding that the Youth Party possessed the legal standing to institute the action.
The Federal High Court had earlier ruled that the Youth Party had the right to seek judicial redress, stating that the political party possessed sufficient interest to approach the court.
However, INEC argued in its appeal that the affidavit evidence presented by the Youth Party did not disclose any direct injury or sufficient legal interest capable of conferring locus standi.
The commission insisted that the trial court wrongly relied on the affidavit evidence to conclude that the plaintiff had the legal standing to sue.
INEC further faulted the court’s interpretation of Section 29(1) of the Electoral Act 2026 regarding the submission timeline for candidates’ particulars.
According to the commission, the law merely provides that political parties must submit candidates’ particulars not later than 120 days before an election, adding that nothing in the law prevents submissions from being made earlier.
The commission maintained that its revised timetable and guidelines did not violate any provision of the Electoral Act.
INEC argued that the timetable was issued pursuant to its statutory powers under Section 151 of the Electoral Act 2026, which empowers the electoral body to formulate regulations, guidelines, and manuals for the administration of elections.
Although the Federal High Court acknowledged INEC’s powers under the Electoral Act, the commission argued that the court contradicted itself by still invalidating parts of the timetable.
INEC described the finding as legally erroneous and insisted that its timetable remained a lawful exercise of its constitutional and statutory responsibilities.
The electoral body also criticised the trial court’s conclusion that the timelines contained in its guidelines unlawfully altered the latitude granted to political parties under the Electoral Act.
According to INEC, the court failed to identify any concrete inconsistency between its guidelines and the provisions of the law, arguing that the conclusions reached by the trial judge were speculative.
INEC further accused the Federal High Court of disregarding binding judicial precedents earlier decided by the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal on related matters.
“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.
Based on the grounds raised in the appeal, INEC urged the Court of Appeal to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment delivered by the Federal High Court.
The commission also requested the appellate court to strike out the suit instituted by the Youth Party on the grounds that the plaintiff lacked the locus standi to maintain the action and that the matter was merely academic.
In addition to the substantive appeal, INEC filed a motion seeking a stay of execution of the Federal High Court judgment pending the determination of the appeal.
The application for stay of execution was brought pursuant to Sections 6 and 36 of the Constitution as well as relevant procedural rules of court.
INEC argued that enforcing the judgment before the appeal is determined could significantly disrupt preparations for the 2027 general elections.
According to the commission, implementation of the judgment at this stage could throw the entire electoral framework into confusion and render the pending appeal ineffective.
“If the judgment of this honourable court is enforced or executed before the hearing and determination of the appeal, the entire electoral architecture and preparations for the 2027 general elections will be thrown into confusion, and the appeal will be rendered nugatory,” INEC stated.
The legal dispute is expected to shape political calculations ahead of the 2027 elections, especially regarding timelines for party primaries, candidate submissions, and possible defections by politicians seeking alternative party platforms before final nominations are concluded.
