By Admin
The Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal has reserved judgment in two separate appeals filed by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) challenging lower court decisions over the timetable and guidelines issued for the 2027 general elections.
The appellate panel, led by Justice Adebukola Bankole, announced after hearing arguments from all parties that the date for the judgment would be communicated to the litigants in due course.
The legal dispute arose after the Youth Party of Nigeria (YPN) and the Social Democratic Party (SDP) approached separate Federal High Courts in Abuja seeking to invalidate aspects of INEC's election timetable for the 2027 polls.
In one of the cases, Justice Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court ruled in favour of the YPN and nullified portions of the electoral timetable and guidelines issued by INEC. In the second suit, Justice James Omotosho delivered a split judgment, granting some of the reliefs sought by the SDP while also upholding parts of INEC's position.
Dissatisfied with the decisions, INEC proceeded to the Court of Appeal, asking the court to overturn the judgment delivered in the YPN case and to set aside portions of the ruling in the SDP suit which the commission argued unlawfully restricted its constitutional powers.
Leading INEC's legal team, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Dr. Alex Izinyon, argued that the electoral body possesses clear constitutional and statutory authority to organise, supervise and regulate elections, including issuing guidelines and fixing timelines for pre-election activities.
According to him, the powers exercised by INEC in releasing the 2027 election timetable are backed by the provisions of the 1999 Constitution and the Electoral Act.
He further argued that the lower courts failed to properly interpret provisions relating to the timelines for political parties to conduct primary elections and submit candidates' names to the commission.
Izinyon contended that the relevant provisions requiring political parties to complete certain activities "not later than 120 days and not more than 90 days" before an election should not be interpreted rigidly to mean that such actions must occur on exact dates.
According to the senior lawyer, the law merely sets the permissible time frame within which such activities can take place and grants INEC the discretion to arrange electoral activities accordingly.
He also argued that the reliefs granted by the trial courts were declaratory in nature and that the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence showing they had suffered any injury or prejudice as a result of INEC's timetable.
Before the substantive appeals were heard, INEC also urged the appellate court to dismiss the Youth Party of Nigeria's defence on the grounds that the party failed to file its respondent's brief within the period prescribed by the Court of Appeal's pre-election practice directions.
Counsel to the YPN, Akinwale Irokosun, acknowledged before the court that the party had not filed any response opposing INEC's application.
The appellate court also heard arguments over an application by the YPN seeking an extension of time to file its response out of time, a request strongly opposed by INEC's legal team, which argued that the rules governing pre-election matters do not permit such extensions once the stipulated period has elapsed.
INEC further argued that the respondent's brief was filed outside the legally permitted period and exceeded the maximum page limit prescribed by the court's rules.
The Court of Appeal reserved rulings on all pending applications and indicated that its decisions would be delivered alongside the judgments in the substantive appeals.