Separate Appeal Court panels has issued conflicting rulings, one affirming INEC’s authority while another voided key Electoral Act provisions.
An evidently disturbing development played up yes-terday in the judiciary after two Appeal Courts handed down conflicting judgments on the powers and guidelines of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
The first Court of Appeal, Abuja, upturned the judgment of a Federal High Court, which nullified part of the election guidelines of INEC for the conduct of the 2027 general election.
A three-member panel of the appellate court in a unanimous judgement held that the trial court was wrong in nullifying the guidelines, which did not in any way violate the 1991 Constitution nor the Electoral Act.
Yet, another three-member panel of another appellate court also sitting in Abuja struck down Sections 77(5), (6) and (7), as well as 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026, for being inconsistent with the 1999 Constitution.
The affected sections regulate membership registers of political parties and the procedure for the nomination of candidates for the 2027 general election.
Justice Mohammed Umar had in a judgement delivered on May 20, voided the Revised Timetable and Schedule of Activities of INEC, for the 2027 general election by a Federal High Court in Abuja, on the grounds among others that the time-frame “imposed” by INEC on political parties to submit their membership register, conduct primaries, and same names of candidates for the 2027 general elections, “is inconsistent with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026”.
Umar voided the time-table while delivering judgement in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/517/2016, and filed by the Youth Party.
The plaintiff in the suit dated and filed on March 11, by its counsel, J. O. Olotu sought for several reliefs, including a declaration that upon a proper consideration and interpretation of the provisions of Sections 29, 82 and 84(1) of the Electoral Act, 2026, the powers of the INEC to receive notice of party primaries and the personal particulars of candidates, and its duty to attend, observe and monitor such primaries, does not extend to fixing or prescribing the timetable within which political parties may conduct their primary elections for the purpose of nominating candidates for the 2027 general elections.
Dissatisfied, the electoral umpire approached the appellate court to set aside the verdict of the trial court.
However, delivering judgement on Monday, Justice Adebukola Banjoko, who delivered the lead judgement read by Justice Okon Abang, faulted the trial court for invalidating the administrative discretion of INEC.
“The law gives INEC powers to conduct elections in the country. There was no deposition or threat that the respondent was prevented from conducting its primaries,” he said, adding that the respondent could only invoke the powers of the court where there are heavy threats to its participation in the election.
Justice Abang explained that where INEC acted within its power, the courts could not get involved.
“The declarative reliefs granted by the trial court were wrongly granted and they are hereby set aside”, Abang declared.
INEC in its appeal dated May 25, 2026, and filed by its counsel, Alex Izinyon, prayed the court to set aside the judgement, claiming that the trial court erred in law when it failed to pronounce on the jurisdictional issue of the suit being hypothetic and academic, and a denial of fair hearing to the appellant.
The lawyer specifically stated that the lower court erred in law when it held: “It is clear from the wording of Sections 29(1), 82, and 84 of the Electoral Act, 2026, the following can be understood
