Conflicting Judgments Emerge from Nigerian Appeal Courts on INEC's Powers

Nigeria's judiciary is facing a significant challenge as two separate Court of Appeal panels in Abuja have delivered conflicting rulings on the powers and guidelines of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). This divergence creates uncertainty surrounding the conduct of the 2027 general election.

The first ruling, delivered by a three-member panel, overturned a Federal High Court judgment that had nullified parts of INEC's election guidelines. The appellate court found that the guidelines did not violate the constitution or the Electoral Act, asserting that the lower court was wrong to invalidate INEC's administrative discretion in setting timelines for party primaries and candidate submissions.

However, in a stark contrast, another three-member panel from a different appellate court upheld the nullification of key sections of the Electoral Act 2026. Specifically, Sections 77(5), (6), and (7), along with Section 84(2), were struck down for being inconsistent with the 1999 Constitution. These sections govern the membership registers of political parties and the procedures for nominating candidates for the upcoming general election.

“

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.

The initial Federal High Court judgment, delivered by Justice Mohammed Umar on May 20, had voided INEC's Revised Timetable and Schedule of Activities for the 2027 election. The court agreed with the Youth Party's argument that INEC's imposed timeframes for parties to submit registers and conduct primaries were inconsistent with the Electoral Act. The Youth Party had sought a declaration that INEC's power to receive party particulars does not extend to prescribing the timetable for primary elections.

Dissatisfied with the Federal High Court's decision, INEC appealed. Justice Adebukola Banjoko, delivering the lead judgment read by Justice Okon Abang, faulted the trial court for invalidating INEC's administrative discretion. "The law gives INEC powers to conduct elections in the country," Justice Abang stated, adding that courts should only intervene when there are significant threats to a party's participation in the election. The conflicting judgments now leave the electoral process in a state of legal ambiguity.

“

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.