The Court of Appeal in Abuja has reserved judgment in two appeals challenging conflicting rulings of the Federal High Court on the timetable issued by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) for the conduct of the 2027 general elections.
A three-member panel of the appellate court, led by Justice Adebukola Bankole, announced on Wednesday that judgment had been reserved and that a date for its delivery would be communicated to all parties.
The appeals stem from separate suits filed by the Youth Party of Nigeria (YPN) and the Social Democratic Party (SDP), both of which challenged the legality of INEC’s timetable for the 2027 elections.
In the first suit, Justice Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court nullified the election timetable after granting the reliefs sought by the YPN.
In the second case, Justice James Omotosho granted some of the reliefs sought by the SDP while also ruling in favor of INEC on other issues.
Dissatisfied with both decisions, INEC approached the Court of Appeal, seeking to overturn Justice Umar’s judgment in its entirety and set aside portions of Justice Omotosho’s ruling that restricted the commission’s powers over election scheduling.
Arguing the appeals on behalf of INEC, Dr. Alex Izinyon (SAN), alongside two other Senior Advocates of Nigeria, maintained that the electoral body acted within the powers conferred on it by the 1999 Constitution and the Electoral Act.
He told the court that the Constitution expressly empowers INEC to organize, supervise and conduct elections, including issuing guidelines and timetables for pre-election activities.
Izinyon argued that the trial courts erred in interpreting the constitutional provisions governing election timelines, particularly the requirement that certain activities be conducted “not later than 120 days and not more than 90 days” before an election.
According to him, the lower courts adopted an overly rigid interpretation by insisting that activities must occur exactly 120 days before the election.
He argued that the law merely sets the outer limits for compliance and does not require strict adherence to a specific date.
The senior lawyer also contended that the reliefs granted by the trial courts were declaratory in nature and should not have been granted because the respondents failed to provide evidence that they had suffered any injury or that party primaries were affected by the timetable.
On the appeal arising from the SDP suit, Izinyon submitted that Justice Omotosho wrongly limited INEC’s constitutional powers by directing the commission to amend aspects of its election schedule.
Before the substantive appeals were argued, the court heard several preliminary applications.
INEC urged the court to bar the Youth Party of Nigeria from opposing the appeal, arguing that the party failed to file its respondent’s brief within the period prescribed under the Court of Appeal’s Practice Directions on pre-election matters.
Izinyon argued that the rules expressly prohibit extending time once the deadline has expired.
Counsel to the YPN, Akinwale Irokosun, acknowledged that no response had been filed to INEC’s application and subsequently sought an extension of time to file the party’s respondent’s brief.
INEC opposed the request, insisting that the appellate court lacked the discretion to extend the time allowed under the applicable rules, citing several Supreme Court and Court of Appeal authorities in support of its position.
The Court of Appeal reserved rulings on both the preliminary applications and the substantive appeals until a date to be communicated to the parties.
SOURCE: NAN
