The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal in Abuja, seeking to overturn a Federal High Court judgment that nullified the timelines it issued for the conduct of the 2027 general elections.
The Commission also applied for a stay of execution of the judgment pending the determination of the appeal.
In a notice of appeal dated May 25 and filed through a legal team led by Dr. Alex Izinyon, SAN, INEC raised nine grounds of appeal, urging the appellate court to set aside the judgment delivered by the Federal High Court in Abuja on May 20.
Among other arguments, INEC contended that the trial court erred in law by failing to determine a jurisdictional objection it raised during proceedings. The Commission further argued that the suit instituted against it by the Youth Party (YP) was hypothetical and academic in nature.
According to INEC, the failure of the lower court to pronounce on critical issues raised in its defence amounted to a denial of fair hearing.
The Commission also faulted the trial court’s interpretation of Sections 29(1), 82 and 84 of the Electoral Act, 2026.
In its judgment, the Federal High Court held that political parties are only required under the Electoral Act to submit the names of candidates who emerged from valid primaries not later than 120 days before the date of the general election.
The court further held that political parties are merely required to notify INEC at least 21 days before holding primaries, congresses or conventions for the nomination of candidates, and that the Commission lacks the statutory authority to impose additional timelines for the conduct of party primaries outside the provisions of the Electoral Act.
However, INEC argued in its appeal that the judgment was against the weight of evidence presented before the court.
The electoral body consequently urged the Court of Appeal to allow the appeal and vacate the judgment of the lower court.
INEC also asked the appellate court to strike out the suit filed by the Youth Party on the grounds that the party lacked the locus standi, or legal right, to institute and maintain the action.
