The Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja has reserved judgment in two appeals filed by the Independent National Electoral Commission over disputes linked to its timetable and guidelines for the 2027 general elections.
A three-member panel of the appellate court announced on Wednesday, July 1, 2026, that parties in the cases would be informed when the judgment is ready for delivery.
Justice Adebukola Bankole, who spoke for the panel, said the court would communicate the judgment date to all parties involved in the appeals.
The legal dispute arose after two political parties, the Youth Party of Nigeria and the Social Democratic Party, challenged the 2027 election timetable released by INEC.
The parties had separately approached the Federal High Court in Abuja, asking the court to invalidate parts of the timetable and guidelines issued by the electoral body.
In the suit filed by the Youth Party of Nigeria, Justice Mohammed Umar granted the party’s request and nullified the election guidelines released by INEC.
In a separate case involving the Social Democratic Party, Justice James Omotosho granted some of the reliefs sought by the party, while also granting certain reliefs in favour of INEC.
Dissatisfied with the outcomes, INEC filed appeals before the Court of Appeal. The commission is seeking to overturn Justice Umar’s judgment and also challenge the part of Justice Omotosho’s decision which it believes restricted its constitutional powers.
During the hearing, INEC’s legal team was led by Dr Alex Izinyon, SAN, alongside two other Senior Advocates of Nigeria.
Izinyon argued that INEC has the legal authority to issue election timetables and guidelines under the 1999 Constitution and the Electoral Act.
According to him, the Constitution empowers INEC to organise, supervise and conduct elections, including political activities that take place before election day.
He maintained that the 2027 election timetable was issued within the scope of the powers granted to the electoral commission by law.
The senior lawyer submitted that the trial court wrongly interpreted the provisions relating to election timelines. He argued that the lower court failed to properly apply existing decisions of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal on INEC’s powers.
Izinyon further argued that previous court decisions had affirmed INEC’s authority to organise and supervise elections, including the power to set timelines for pre-election activities.
He faulted the lower court’s interpretation of the phrase relating to the period of “not later than 120 days” and “not more than 90 days,” which formed part of the dispute at the trial court.
According to him, the law should not be read in a rigid or overly technical manner. He said the trial court’s approach amounted to a mechanical interpretation that did not reflect the intention of lawmakers.
INEC’s counsel also argued that the political parties did not provide sufficient evidence to justify the reliefs granted by the trial courts.
He said there was no affidavit evidence showing that the parties had commenced primaries, taken concrete steps, or suffered any identifiable injury as a result of INEC’s timetable.
On that basis, he submitted that the Federal High Court should not have granted declaratory reliefs in favour of the parties.
In the second appeal involving the Social Democratic Party, Izinyon said INEC was only challenging the part of Justice Omotosho’s decision that limited the commission’s powers by directing it to adjust some dates in the timetable.
Before the substantive appeals were heard, INEC’s legal team also moved three separate applications before the Court of Appeal.
One of the applications asked the appellate court to shut out the Youth Party of Nigeria from responding to INEC’s appeal.
Izinyon argued that the party failed to file its respondent’s brief within the required period after being served with INEC’s appellant brief.
He relied on the practice direction governing pre-election matters, arguing that the rules do not allow an extension of time once the prescribed period has expired.
Counsel to the Youth Party of Nigeria, Akinwale Irokosun, confirmed to the panel that the party had not filed a response to INEC’s motion.
Irokosun later moved an application asking the court to grant an extension of time for the party to file its respondent’s brief.
INEC opposed the application, insisting that the Court of Appeal lacked the discretion to extend the time under the applicable rules for pre-election proceedings.
After hearing the arguments, the appellate court reserved its ruling on the pending applications. The court said the ruling would be delivered together with the main judgment in the appeals.
The cases are significant because they touch on INEC’s constitutional powers, the interpretation of the Electoral Act, and the legal framework for preparations ahead of the 2027 general elections in Nigeria.
