INEC Appeals Court Ruling Nullifying Timelines For Party Primaries

The Independent National Electoral Commission has challenged the judgement of a federal high court in Abuja that nullified the timelines it issued for political party primaries and candidate nominations ahead of the 2027 general elections.

INEC filed a notice of appeal alongside a motion seeking a stay of execution of the judgement on Monday, May 25.

Last Wednesday, the federal high court in Abuja ruled against the electoral commission’s timetable for party primaries and candidate submissions.

Delivering the judgement, Justice Mohammed Umar held that INEC lacked the authority to “fix or prescribe the timetable within which political parties may conduct their primary elections for the purpose of nominating candidates for the 2027 general elections”.

The court stated that the powers granted to the commission under Sections 29, 82, and 84(1) of the Electoral Act do not give it the right to determine timelines for party primaries.

The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/517/2016, was filed by the Youth Party on March 11.

Under the revised schedule earlier released by INEC, political parties were expected to submit their membership registers by May 10, complete primaries for candidate selection, and process withdrawals or replacements before the end of May.

According to NAN, INEC based its appeal on nine different grounds.

READ ALSO:

• 2027: Sowore Emerges AAC Consensus Presidential Candidate
• Tinubu Declares End Of Economic Hardship Phase, Says Nigeria Now More Stable For Investment
• Court Dismisses Suit Challenging Jonathan’s Eligibility For 2027 Presidential Election
• Cooking Gas Prices Hit N2,000/kg In Lagos, Ogun Amid Supply Crisis
• Adeleke Backs Tinubu’s 2027 Re-Election Bid, Praises Federal Projects In Osun

Through its lawyer, Alex Izinyon, the commission argued that the trial court failed to address the issue of jurisdiction, insisting that the case was hypothetical and academic.

INEC further maintained that Sections 29(1), 82, and 84 of the Electoral Act 2026 should not have been given the “restricted narrow interpretation” adopted by the lower court.

The commission also argued that the judge erred by failing to properly apply the provisions of Section 151 of the Electoral Act 2026.