•One voids commission’s discretion, the other upholds constitutional provisions

An evidently disturbing development played up yesterday in the judiciary after two Appeal Courts handed down conflicting judgments on the powers and guidelines of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

The first Court of Appeal, Abuja, upturned the judgment of a Federal High Court, which nullified part of the election guidelines of INEC for the conduct of the 2027 general election.

A three-member panel of the appellate court in a unanimous judgement held that the trial court was wrong in nullifying the guidelines, which did not in any way violate the 1991 Constitution nor the Electoral Act.

Yet, another three-member panel of another appellate court also sitting in Abuja struck down Sections 77(5), (6) and (7), as well as 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026, for being inconsistent with the 1999 Constitution.

The affected sections regulate membership registers of political parties and the procedure for the nomination of candidates for the 2027 general election.

Justice Mohammed Umar had in a judgement delivered on May 20, voided the Revised Timetable and Schedule of Activities of INEC, for the 2027 general election by a Federal High Court in Abuja, on the grounds among others that the time-frame “imposed” by INEC on political parties to submit their membership register, conduct primaries, and same names of candidates for the 2027 general elections, “is inconsistent with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026”.

Umar voided the time-table while delivering judgement in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/517/2016, and filed by the Youth Party.

The plaintiff in the suit dated and filed on March 11, by its counsel, J. O. Olotu sought for several reliefs, including a declaration that upon a proper consideration and interpretation of the provisions of Sections 29, 82 and 84(1) of the Electoral Act, 2026, the powers of the INEC to receive notice of party primaries and the personal particulars of candidates, and its duty to attend, observe and monitor such primaries, does not extend to fixing or prescribing the timetable within which political parties may conduct their primary elections for the purpose of nominating candidates for the 2027 general elections.

Dissatisfied, the electoral umpire approached the appellate court to set aside the verdict of the trial court.

However, delivering judgement on Monday, Justice Adebukola Banjoko, who delivered the lead judgement read by Justice Okon Abang, faulted the trial court for invalidating the administrative discretion of INEC.

“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,” he said, adding that the respondent could only invoke the powers of the court where there are heavy threats to its participation in the election.

Justice Abang explained that where INEC acted within its power, the courts could not get involved.

“The declarative reliefs granted by the trial court were wrongly granted and they are hereby set aside”, Abang declared.

INEC in its appeal dated May 25, 2026, and filed by its counsel, Alex Izinyon, prayed the court to set aside the judgement, claiming that the trial court erred in law when it failed to pronounce on the jurisdictional issue of the suit being hypothetic and academic, and a denial of fair hearing to the appellant.

The lawyer specifically stated that the lower court erred in law when it held: “It is clear from the wording of Sections 29(1), 82, and 84 of the Electoral Act, 2026, the following can be understood.

Section 29(1) of the Electoral Act, 2026 mandated political parties to submit the names of candidates first in the prescribed forms of the candidates who emerged from its valid primaries, which such political party intended to sponsor at the elections, not later than 120 days before the date of the General election.

He said the judgement of the trial court was against the weight of evidence placed before it and therefore prayed the court for an order allowing the appeal and setting aside the Judgement delivered by the trial court.

He also prayed for an order of the court, striking out the suit as the respondent lacked the locus standi to institute and maintain the same, describing the suit as being academic.

Thus, in their unanimous judgement, the three-member panel agreed with the appellant that the Youth Party, which instituted the case against INEC lacked legal power (locus standi) to do what it did.

According to the appellate court the party did not explain how the Guidelines affected it and its members in the conduct of its primary election for the nomination of candidates for the 2027 poll.

The Court also held that the YP failed to establish how the Guidelines affected the submission of its nominated candidates to INEC.

But the other three-member panel of the second Appeal Court, while delivering judgement in the appeal marked CA/ABJ/CV/750/2026, stated that the sections of the Electoral Act ran contrary to 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 panel was led by Justice Balkisu Bello Aliyu.

The Zenith Party (ZP) had approached the appellate court to challenge the judgment of a Federal High Court, which dismissed its suit challenging the constitutionality of parts of the Electoral Act, 2026 relating to membership registers of political parties and the conduct of primary elections.

In the Electoral Act, 2026, Section 77(5) stated that only persons whose names were 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) provided 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) provided that a political party that failed 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 provided 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.

Not satisfied, ZP appealed the decision and urged the appellate court 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 appellant in addition prayed the 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. (THISDAY)

Update news