Subscribe: Gist E-Paper
Conflicting judgments delivered by two separate panels of the Court of Appeal in Abuja have raised fresh legal questions over the powers of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and key provisions of the Electoral Act ahead of the 2027 general elections.
While one appellate panel upheld INEC's authority to issue election guidelines and overturned a Federal High Court judgment against the commission, another panel declared parts of the Electoral Act unconstitutional, ruling that they unlawfully restrict the autonomy of political parties.
In the first case, a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal set aside the decision of the Federal High Court, which had nullified portions of INEC's Revised Timetable and Schedule of Activities for the 2027 elections.
The appellate court held that the lower court erred by invalidating INEC's administrative powers, stressing that the commission acted within the authority granted to it by law.
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Adebukola Banjoko, which was read by Justice Okon Abang, ruled that the guidelines neither violated the 1999 Constitution nor the Electoral Act.
The court maintained that INEC has the constitutional responsibility to organise elections and possesses the discretion to issue administrative guidelines for that purpose.
Justice Abang noted that the Youth Party, which instituted the suit, failed to demonstrate how the guidelines adversely affected its participation in the electoral process or the conduct of its primaries.
He added that courts should not interfere with INEC's lawful exercise of its statutory powers unless there is clear evidence of illegality or constitutional violation.
The appellate court also held that the Youth Party lacked the legal standing to challenge the guidelines, describing the suit as speculative and academic.
The case stemmed from a May 20 judgment of the Federal High Court delivered by Justice Mohammed Umar, who had voided aspects of INEC's election timetable after agreeing with the Youth Party that the commission exceeded its powers by prescribing timelines for party primaries and submission of candidates.
Dissatisfied with the ruling, INEC appealed, arguing that the lower court failed to consider jurisdictional issues and wrongly interfered with powers specifically vested in the electoral commission.
In a separate judgment delivered the same day, another three-member panel of the Court of Appeal, led by Justice Balkisu Bello Aliyu, reached a different conclusion on certain provisions of the Electoral Act 2026.
The panel struck down Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act, declaring them inconsistent with Sections 221 and 222 of the 1999 Constitution.
The invalidated provisions required political parties to submit membership registers to INEC before primaries, restricted parties to using only the submitted registers, imposed sanctions for non-compliance, and limited candidate nomination procedures to direct primaries or consensus.
The appeal was filed by the Zenith Party after the Federal High Court dismissed its suit challenging the constitutionality of the disputed provisions.
Allowing the appeal, the Court of Appeal ruled that the Constitution already specifies the qualifications and disqualifications for candidates and political parties, and that the Electoral Act cannot impose additional conditions capable of limiting constitutional rights.
The court further held that political parties retain the constitutional authority to regulate their internal affairs, including determining how they nominate candidates, provided such decisions remain within the framework of the Constitution.
The two judgments, though arising from separate suits, have introduced contrasting judicial interpretations on the scope of INEC's regulatory powers and the extent to which electoral laws can regulate the internal processes of political parties ahead of the 2027 elections.
