By Abdulahmeed Abdulrozaq Bilal | Fact Frontier.
Click here to read more about the reporter.
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has formally approached the Court of Appeal, seeking to resolve two conflicting judgments from the Federal High Court that have thrown the commission’s authority to set the timeline for the 2027 general elections into legal turmoil.
The electoral body confirmed on Tuesday that it filed separate appeals against the divergent rulings, which have created uncertainty over the commission’s statutory powers to prescribe deadlines for party primaries, nomination of candidates, and other critical electoral activities ahead of the 2027 polls.
The legal crisis began on May 20, 2026, when Justice Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja delivered a judgment voiding INEC’s revised election timetable. Justice Umar ruled that the commission overstepped its bounds by setting mandatory deadlines for political parties to conduct primaries and submit candidates, arguing that the Electoral Act 2022 does not explicitly grant INEC such power. The court held that fixing timelines for intra-party processes is a function of the political parties themselves, not the electoral umpire.
However, less than two weeks later, in a sharp legal contradiction, Justice James Omotosho, also of the Federal High Court, affirmed INEC’s general authority to issue an election timetable. While striking down specific provisions relating to candidate nomination and substitution deadlines, Justice Omotosho upheld that INEC retains the power to determine the sequence and timing of electoral activities as part of its constitutional mandate to organize, undertake, and supervise elections.
The conflicting judgments have left INEC, political parties, and legal practitioners in a state of confusion. In a situation where one high court nullifies the entire timetable and another affirms the commission’s powers, neither INEC nor the political parties can be certain of the legal framework governing the run-up to 2027.
In response, INEC has filed an appeal against both rulings at the Court of Appeal, asking the higher court to set aside the judgment that stripped it of timeline-setting powers. The commission has also filed a motion for a stay of execution of Justice Umar’s judgment to prevent immediate disruption of ongoing election preparations.
“INEC remains committed to the rule of law. We have taken the necessary legal steps to seek clarity and finality on this critical issue. Without a clear and uniform interpretation of our powers, the electoral process risks descending into chaos,” a senior INEC official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told reporters.
Legal analysts note that the appeal court’s decision will have far-reaching implications. Should the court side with the judgment limiting INEC’s powers, the commission may be unable to enforce any pre-election deadlines, potentially leading to delays, legal battles over candidate submissions, and a compressed electoral calendar. Conversely, affirming INEC’s authority would restore the status quo and allow the commission to proceed with its published timetable.
The case is expected to be heard on an expedited basis, given the constitutional timeframes for the 2027 general elections. Political parties have been advised to continue complying with INEC’s original schedule pending the appellate court’s decision.
Observers say the confusion highlights longstanding ambiguities in the Electoral Act 2022, which lawmakers may eventually be compelled to amend. For now, all eyes are on the Court of Appeal to resolve the judicial deadlock and provide the electoral commission with the legal certainty it urgently requires.
