The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) yesterday dismissed concerns that the recent Court of Appeal judgements on aspects of the Electoral Act and its election guidelines could undermine preparations for the 2027 general election, insisting that the rulings pose no obstacle to the conduct of credible, free and fair polls.

A senior INEC official who pleaded to remain anonymous, told THISDAY that the Commission’s constitutional mandate to conduct elections and issue the necessary administrative guidelines remains intact, stressing that the judgment affirming its powers over election timetables reinforced its legal position.

The assurance came as senior lawyers urged caution over the implications of the judgments and called for clarity to avoid uncertainty ahead of the 2027 elections.

“They are not really conflicting judgments. The Youth Party case actually challenged INEC’s powers to fix timelines for elections, and that case has been dismissed. As we have said earlier, the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and the Electoral Act empower INEC to fix timetables for elections.

“Nobody can challenge INEC’s powers to fix timetable. INEC is statutorily empowered to conduct elections and also statutorily empowered to regulate the process. How can we do this without a timeline?

“The second matter, which involves the Zenith Labour Party, is about the party membership list, which, under the current legal framework, is expected to be submitted electronically. So, the second case has nothing to do with our timeline. Our legal team is studying the judgments, but I can tell you that there is no cause for alarm. We are on course to deliver credible elections for Nigerians in 2027,” the source explained.

The reaction by INEC followed two recent Court of Appeal decisions touching on its regulatory authority and the constitutional autonomy of political parties, prompting fresh discussions on the commission’s powers to regulate party activities ahead of the 2027 general election.

In one case, a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal in Abuja overturned the judgement of the Federal High Court, which had nullified aspects of INEC’s Revised Timetable and Schedule of Activities for the 2027 general election.

The appellate court held that the trial court erred in invalidating INEC’s administrative discretion, stressing that the electoral body acted within the powers conferred on it by the Constitution and the Electoral Act.

Justice Adebukola Banjoko, whose lead judgment was read by Justice Okon Abang, further held that the Youth Party lacked the requisite locus standi to challenge the electoral guidelines because it failed to demonstrate how the timetable adversely affected its rights or participation in the electoral process.

The court consequently allowed INEC’s appeal and set aside all the declaratory reliefs granted by the Federal High Court.

In a separate appeal, another three-member panel of the Court of Appeal, led by Justice Balkisu Bello Aliyu, declared Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026 unconstitutional.

The affected provisions required political parties to submit their membership registers to INEC before primaries, prohibited the use of any register other than the one submitted to the commission, barred defaulting parties from fielding candidates, and prescribed direct primaries or consensus as methods for nominating candidates.

The appellate court held that the provisions were inconsistent with Sections 221 and 222 of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantee political parties the right to regulate their internal affairs, including the nomination of candidates.

It ruled that statutory provisions cannot impose additional conditions that undermine constitutional rights.

Meanwhile, senior lawyers have urged caution over claims that the Court of Appeal delivered conflicting judgments on the powers of INEC, insisting that the decisions addressed different legal issues and that the Supreme Court would ultimately provide the final interpretation.

Reacting to the developments, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Dr. Joseph Nwobike, said although he had not studied the judgments in detail, he did not consider them to be inconsistent.

“I believe they are not inconsistent with each other in the sense that one affirmed INEC’s regulatory authority, while the other nullified certain provisions of the Electoral Act that interfered with the constitutional powers of political parties to regulate their internal affairs,” he said.

Nwobike added that the Supreme Court would, if necessary, clarify the jurisprudence surrounding the disputed provisions and define the limits of both INEC’s powers and the constitutional autonomy of political parties. Politics

Similarly, Professor Edoba Omoregie, SAN, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Benin, declined to comment on the merits of the decisions, explaining that he had not yet read the judgments.

“I reserve my comments because I have not had the opportunity to read the decisions myself. In any event, the matters will most definitely end up before the Supreme Court for a final determination,” he said.

However, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Mutalubi Ojo Adebayo, disagreed with suggestions that the Court of Appeal had issued conflicting judgments.

According to him, the only Court of Appeal decision delivered on the issue was the appeal filed by INEC against the judgment of Justice Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court in the suit instituted by the Youth Party.

He explained that Justice Umar had earlier held that INEC lacked the authority to prescribe timelines for political parties to submit their membership registers and lists of nominated candidates.

The Court of Appeal, however, overturned that decision, holding that the Youth Party lacked locus standi because it failed to establish that it had suffered any legal injury as a result of INEC’s guidelines.

Adebayo further clarified that the separate case arising from the judgment of Justice Peter Lifu Omotosho of the Federal High Court, involving the Social Democratic Party, is still pending before the Court of Appeal and has not yet been decided.

He maintained that the Court of Appeal could not hand down contradictory decisions on the same legal issue and suggested that reports of conflicting judgments may have arisen from a misunderstanding of the different cases.

According to him, the pending appeal would likely be determined in line with the principles already laid down in the Youth Party case.

The differing legal interpretations have nevertheless highlighted the delicate constitutional balance between INEC’s responsibility to regulate elections and the autonomy of political parties to manage their internal affairs. (THISDAY)

Update news