Appeal Court validates INEC’s 2027 election guidelines

Rules that “Where INEC acts within its power, the courts cannot get involved”

.Strikes down sections 77(5), (6) and (7) and 84(2) of Electoral Act as unconstitutional

The Court of Appeal in Abuja, on Thursday, validated the Guidelines of the Independent National Electoral Commission INEC on the conduct of the 2027 general election.

In a unanimous decision, the court set aside the judgment of the Federal High Court which nullified part of guidelines.

The appellate court voided and set aside the May 20 judgment of the lower court which nullified the guidelines and barred its implementation.

Delivering the lead judgment prepared by Justice Adebukola Banjoko, Justice Okon Abang, held that the trial court erred in invalidating INEC’s administrative discretion.

“The law gives INEC powers to conduct elections in the country,” he said.

The court held that the Youth Party (YP) which instituted the case against INEC lacked the locus standi (legal power) to institute the suit.

The court further held that there was no deposition or threat that the respondent was prevented from conducting its primaries.

‘’The respondent can only invoke the powers of the court where there are heavy threats to its participation in the election.

“Where INEC acts within its power, the courts cannot get involved. The declarative reliefs of the trial court were wrongly granted and are hereby set aside,’’ the court held.

Justice Banjoko said that the party did not explain how the guidelines affected it and it’s members in the conduct of its primary election for the nomination of candidates for the 2027 poll.

The panel of three justices unanimously agreed that by nullifying the guidelines on the grounds that it violated some provisions of the Electoral Act, Justice Umar erred resulting in miscarriage of justice.

INEC which appealed against the high court’s decision had argued that the lower court erred in law.

The electoral umpire contented the lower court erred when it failed to pronounce on the jurisdictional issue of the suit being hypothetic and academic, and a denial of fair hearing.

INEC through its lead counsel, Mr Alex Izinyon had asked the appellate court to set aside the judgment of the lower court which nullified part of  its 2027 election guidelines.

The News Agency of Nigeria, (NAN) recalls that the Youth Party had challenged the legality of INEC’s guideline directing political parties to submit their membership registers and databases by May 10 at the Federal High Court.

This, the commission said was a condition for participating in the 2027 general elections.

In its judgment, the court held that INEC could not lawfully shorten the timeline provided under Section 29(1) of the Electoral Act, 2026, for the submission of party membership records and candidates’ particulars.

Displeased by the decision, INEC, through its counsel, Izinyon, filed an appeal dated May 25 urging the appellate court to set aside the judgment.

The commission argued that the trial court erred in law by failing to determine its objection that the suit was hypothetical and academic, and that the proceedings amounted to a denial of fair hearing.

INEC also contended that the trial court’s judgment was against the weight of evidence before it and urged the Court of Appeal to allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and strike out the suit.

The electoral body further argued that the Youth Party lacked the locus standi to institute and maintain the suit, describing it as academic.

In another development, the Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja has struck down sections 77(5), (6) and (7), as well as 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026, which regulate membership registers of  political parties and the procedure for the nomination of candidates for the 2027 general elections.

In a unanimous decision on Thursday, a three-member panel of the appellate court held that the sections were inconsistent with provisions of sections 221 and 222 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, which gave political parties the right to decide whom to sponsor in an election.

The judgment followed an appeal marked CA/ABJ/CV/750/2026, which the Zenith Party (ZP) lodged against the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

The panel was led by Justice Balkisu Bello Aliyu, while the lead judgment was delivered by Justice Eberechi Nyesom-Wike.

The ZP had appealed to challenge the dismissal of a suit it filed to query the constitutionality of some provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 relating to membership registers of political parties and the conduct of primary elections. Politicalanalysis services

Section 77(5) of the Electoral Act stipulates that only persons whose names are contained in the register submitted to INEC not later than 21 days before the date fixed for primaries, congresses or conventions, would be eligible to vote.

Sub-section (6) provides that a political party shall not use any other register for party primaries, congresses and conventions except the register submitted to the Commission.

Likewise, sub-section (7) provides that a political party that fails to submit the membership register within the stipulated time shall not be eligible to field a candidate for the election.

On the other hand, section 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026 provides that the procedure for the nomination of candidates by political parties for the various elective positions shall be by direct primaries or consensus.

Justice Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court in Abuja had, on May 5, dismissed ZP’s suit as lacking in merit.

Dissatisfied with the judgment, the party approached the appellate court, praying it to, among others, determine whether the stated provisions of the Electoral Act are superior to the powers donated to political parties by the 1999 Constitution, as amended.

The party urged the appellate court to determine if the electoral law was not an attempt to usurp the right of political parties to decide how to conduct their internal affairs.

In its judgment, the appellate court noted that sections 177 and 182 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, already listed the qualifying and disqualifying factors for political parties and candidates in an election.

It held that no other condition contained in a subsidiary law could disqualify an individual already qualified by the Constitution