A fresh legal controversy has emerged over the framework for Nigeria’s 2027 general election after two separate panels of the Court of Appeal, both sitting in Abuja, delivered seemingly conflicting judgments on the powers of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the constitutionality of key provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026.
In one judgment, the appellate court restored INEC’s Revised Timetable and Schedule of Activities for the 2027 general election, overturning a Federal High Court decision that had nullified parts of the electoral body’s guidelines.
However, in another judgment delivered the same day, a different panel of the Court of Appeal struck down Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act, 2026, holding that they are inconsistent with the provisions of the 1999 Constitution.
The two decisions have triggered fresh uncertainty over the extent of INEC’s powers to regulate political parties ahead of the 2027 elections.
Appeal Court Restores INEC Guidelines
The first judgment arose from an appeal filed by INEC against the decision of Justice Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court, Abuja, who, on May 20, nullified portions of the commission’s Revised Timetable and Schedule of Activities for the 2027 general election.
Justice Umar had, in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/517/2026, filed by the Youth Party, held that the timelines prescribed by INEC for political parties to submit membership registers, conduct primary elections and forward the names of candidates were inconsistent with the Electoral Act, 2026.
The Youth Party, through its counsel, J.O. Olotu, had approached the court on March 11, seeking, among other reliefs, a declaration that upon a proper interpretation of Sections 29, 82 and 84(1) of the Electoral Act, 2026, INEC’s constitutional duty to receive notices of party primaries, monitor such primaries and receive particulars of nominated candidates did not extend to fixing or prescribing the timetable within which political parties must conduct their primary elections for the purpose of nominating candidates for the 2027 general election.
The party argued that the commission exceeded its statutory powers by imposing deadlines that were allegedly inconsistent with the Electoral Act.
Dissatisfied with the judgment, INEC approached the Court of Appeal, asking it to set aside the verdict.
In its appeal dated May 25, 2026, and filed by Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Alex Izinyon, INEC argued that the Federal High Court erred in law by failing to first determine whether the suit was merely hypothetical and academic.
The electoral commission also contended that the lower court denied it fair hearing and wrongly interpreted Sections 29(1), 82 and 84 of the Electoral Act, 2026.
INEC further maintained that the judgment was against the weight of evidence and urged the appellate court to strike out the suit entirely on the ground that the Youth Party lacked the legal standing (locus standi) to institute the action.
Delivering judgment on Monday, a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal.
The lead judgment, delivered by Justice Adebukola Banjoko and read by Justice Okon Abang, held that the trial court erred by interfering with INEC’s administrative discretion.
“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,” the appellate court held.
Justice Abang explained that courts should only intervene where there is a real threat to a party’s constitutional rights and not where INEC merely exercised powers lawfully conferred on it.
According to the court, where INEC acts within the limits of the law, judicial intervention is unnecessary.
“The declarative reliefs granted by the trial court were wrongly granted and they are hereby set aside,” Justice Abang declared.
The appellate court further held that the Youth Party lacked the locus standi to institute the suit because it failed to demonstrate how the election guidelines affected either the conduct of its primary election or the submission of its candidates for the 2027 polls.
The panel consequently set aside the judgment of the Federal High Court and restored the validity of INEC’s election timetable and guidelines.
Another Appeal Court Invalidates Electoral Act Provisions
In what observers described as a conflicting legal development, another three-member panel of the Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja delivered a separate judgment declaring Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act, 2026 unconstitutional.
The judgment was delivered in Appeal No. CA/ABJ/CV/750/2026, filed by the Zenith Party (ZP).
The party had challenged an earlier decision of Justice Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court, Abuja, delivered on May 5, which dismissed its suit questioning the constitutionality of the disputed provisions of the Electoral Act.
The contested provisions regulate political party membership registers and candidate nomination procedures.
Section 77(5) of the Electoral Act provides that only persons whose names appear in the membership register submitted to INEC at least 21 days before party primaries, congresses or conventions are eligible to vote.
Section 77(6) bars political parties from using any membership register other than the one submitted to INEC.
Section 77(7) further provides that any political party that fails to submit its membership register within the stipulated period shall not be eligible to field candidates for an election.
Section 84(2) of the Act also stipulates that political parties shall nominate candidates for elective offices through either direct primaries or consensus.
Following the dismissal of its suit by the Federal High Court, the Zenith Party appealed, arguing that the disputed provisions amounted to an unconstitutional interference in the internal affairs of political parties.
The party urged the appellate court to determine whether the Electoral Act could lawfully impose conditions beyond those already contained in the Constitution and whether the legislation had effectively usurped the constitutional powers of political parties.
In a unanimous judgment, the appellate panel led by Justice Balkisu Bello Aliyu agreed with the appellant.
The court held that Sections 221 and 222 of the 1999 Constitution expressly vest political parties with the power to determine whom they sponsor for elections and how they manage their internal affairs.
According to the appellate court, Sections 177 and 182 of the Constitution already prescribe the qualifications and disqualifications for elective offices, and no provision of the Electoral Act can validly introduce additional conditions capable of denying otherwise qualified persons the opportunity to contest elections.
The court consequently declared Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act, 2026 inconsistent with the Constitution and therefore invalid.
Implications for 2027 Elections
The two appellate decisions, delivered by different panels of the Court of Appeal on the same day, have created fresh legal debate over the scope of INEC’s regulatory powers and the extent to which the Electoral Act can regulate the internal affairs of political parties.
While one judgment reaffirmed INEC’s authority to issue and enforce administrative guidelines for the conduct of elections, the other significantly curtailed the commission’s reliance on statutory provisions governing party membership registers and candidate nomination procedures.
The development is expected to shape the legal landscape ahead of the 2027 general election and may ultimately require clarification by the Supreme Court to reconcile the apparent conflict between the two appellate decisions.
