2027: Court reserves judgment in INEC’s appeal on election guidelines

The Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal has reserved judgement in two separate appeals over the timetable for the conduct of the 2027 elections released by the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC.

Justice Adebukola Bankole, who led the panel that heard the appeals, reserved judgement in the the cases.

The judge said the date of the judgement will be communicated to parties in the appeal

Two political parties, Youth Party of Nigeria, YPN, and Social Democratic Party, SDP, had approached the Federal High Court in Abuja, to nullify the timetable released for the elections by INEC.

While Justice Mohammed Umar granted the reliefs sought in the suit by YPN and nullified the election guidelines released by INEC, Justice James Omotosho, in the suit filed by SDP, granted some reliefs in favour of the party and some others in favour of the electoral umpire.

Not satisfied by the two judgments, INEC approached the Court of Appeal to set aside the judgments of Justice Umar and parts of the judgement of Justice Omotosho which limits its power regarding the elections.

Dr Alex Izinyon, SAN, led two other SANs from INEC to argue the appeals.

Izinyon in his submission before the court contended that INEC has the power as provided by the law under the provisions of the 1999 Constitution and the Electoral Act to issue guidelines.

Izinyon said, “The Constitution, specifically, empowered INEC to organize, supervise and undertake elections and other political activities as provided and that the timetable provided is in consonance with the power donated by the 1999 Constitution and the enabling act for INEC to do what it did in issuing elections timetables.

“The trial court erred in law because it failed to interpret, using the Supreme Court authorities and Court of Appeal decisions on the power already donated by the 1999 Constitution to INEC to arrange for elections including pre-election matters.

“Supreme Court and Court of Appeal have held that INEC has the power to organize and supervise elections and this include timetable for elections to carry out political activities preceeding the elections.

“The trial court failed to give effect to the phrase “not later than 120days and not more than 90days”, which was a subject of contention at the trial court and that not less than 120 days means it should not be more than but it can be less than but for the court to say that it must be exactly 120days, was too mathematical and not the intendment of the lawmakers as any of the activities can be done before the 120days and not more than. For the trial court to say it must be exactly 120 days is a mechanical application of the statue which is contrary to the decisions of the apex court and the Court of Appeal.”

He said the same goes for the 90 days provisions adding that the reliefs sought by the respondent at the trial court were declarative in nature. “There was no evidence by way of affidavit to show that they have commenced any primary or taken steps or that they have suffered any injury. Therefore the Court ought not to have granted any relief.

“The second appeal was filed by SDP in a judgement delivered by Justice James Omotosho, who granted some reliefs to the SDP and granted some also to the INEC.

“INEC appealed part of the judgement in that case which limits their powers by saying that the days were short by few numbers of days that INEC should go back and rectify this,” Izinyon added.

Before the main appeal was argued, Izinyon moved three applications, one of which urged the court to close the door against YPN on the ground that the party failed to file its respondent brief after service of the appellant briefs on them five days.

He argued that the court should hold that they have no written briefs in opposition to the appellants briefs as they are prohibited by paragraph 13 of the practice direction of the pre-election proceedings issued by the President of the Court of Appeal, which states that no time shall be extended for default under the same paragraph.

YPN counsel, Akinwale Irokosun, when asked by the panel if the party filed any response to the motion, answered in the negative.

The lead counsel later moved his application and the court reserved ruling to be delivered alongside the main appeal.

In the second motion the YPN counsel prayed the court for an extension of time to file the respondent brief out of time but the application was opposed by the INEC lead counsel, Izinyon, on the ground that there is no extension of time to file respondent brief when the time provided by the rules has elapsed.

Izinyon cited a plethoria of Supreme Court and Court of Appeal cases to back his argument, that no discretion can be exercised in that regard once you fail to file respondent brief.

He said the third motion was an application that the purported brief was filed after they had received notice of hearing of the appellant brief saying that the motion was incompetent because there is no time that can be extended for them to file their brief.

According to him, the brief was incompetent because it was filed put of the five days period.

“The brief was more than the lawfully required 25-page limit provided by the rules as it was 37 pages,” Izinyon said.