MCE Faults INEC’s Appeal against Judgement Nullifying Aspects of Election Time-table

• Warns move will erode public trust, credibility

Alex Enumah in Abuja

A civil society group has faulted the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC’s) appeal against the judgement of a Federal High Court, Abuja, which nullified some sections of the commission’s revised time-table for the conduct of the 2027 general elections.

The group, Movement for Credible Election (MCE), pointed out that the judgement of the trial court did not impose any new demands on the electoral umpire but, simply ordered INEC to act in accordance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, in respect of those aspects of the time-table said to be inconsistent with the law.

Justice Mohammed Umar had in a judgement last week, nullified the time-frames imposed by INEC in its Revised Timetable and Schedule of Activities for the 2027 General Election, on the grounds that, “INEC cannot lawfully abridge or limit” the statutory period for some activities by prescribing a shorter timeframe in its 2027 election timetable.

The specific aspects in the time-table that was struck down by the court included; the time-frame for the conduct of primaries; submission of personal particulars of candidates by their political parties for the 2027 general elections; the withdrawal and replacement of candidates by political parties for the 2027 general elections; the publication of the final list of candidates for the 2027 general elections; and campaigning for the 2027 general elections, for being “inconsistent with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026”.

Responding, the commission on Monday, approached the Abuja division of the Court of Appeal, to challenge the decision of Justice Umar.

Besides, the electoral umpire, also filed a motion seeking for the stoppage of the execution of the judgement of the Federal High Court, pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.

Reacting, the Movement for Credible Election while reiterating its commitment to electoral integrity, appealed to INEC not to proceed with the appeal, stating among others that the judgement of the trial court was a declaratory judgement that cannot be stayed.

“Justice Umar’s ruling is declaratory. It does not impose new obligations on INEC; it merely restates the clear provision of Section 29 of the Electoral Act, which allows political parties to submit their final list of candidates not later than 120 days before the election”, the group said.

In a statement jointly issued by the group’s chairman, Dr. Usman Bugaje, Co-chair, Dr Obiageli ‘Oby’ Ezekwesili, deputy chairman, Hadjia Bilikisu Magoro, and Head of National Secretariat, Olawale Okunniyi, MCE, warned that attempting to appeal such a judgement raises the question of whether the commission is seeking to overturn the law itself instead of clarifying its application and in whose interest.

Meanwhile, MCE claimed that INEC does not require early submission of the names of candidates as it prints ballot papers using party names and logos, and not names of candidates.

According to the civil group, there is “no operational basis for compelling political parties to conclude primaries in May or submit candidate lists months earlier than the law requires”.

Similarly, MCE claimed the time-table was “unnecessarily early”, thereby creating avoidable pressure on political parties, undermining internal democracy, and increasing the risk of procedural errors that will later fuel pre election litigations.

While stressing that public trust is the most valuable asset of any electoral umpire, the group noted that when INEC becomes a litigant against political parties over a timetable issue, it risks being perceived as an interested party rather than a neutral regulator, adding that, “Such perceptions – even if unintended- can weaken trust and confidence among political actors and voters ahead of the 2027 elections”.

According to MCE, a survey conducted by Afrobarometer’s in 2023, revealed that only 23% of Nigerians expressed trust in INEC, “meaning more than three quarters of citizens reported little or no confidence in the Commission.

“That is an electoral emergency. At a time when the country is already anxious about preparations for the 2027 elections, INEC should be taking every possible step to rebuild public trust – not engaging in actions that risk pushing trust in the institution toward complete collapse.

“An appeal on a matter where the law is already clear sends the wrong signal to a public whose faith in the electoral process is already dangerously low”.

Arguing that INEC should implement laws impartially rather than contesting them, MCE stated that appealing a judgment that merely affirms [and clarifies] the Electoral Act may be interpreted as the Commission taking sides; a development that can have grave consequences on the legitimacy of the electoral process.

The group therefore called on INEC to accept Justice Umar’s judgement, align its timetable and schedule of activities with Section 29 of the Electoral Act, and focus its energy on delivering credible, inclusive, and timely elections.

“The law is clear and INEC must be seen to obey it as the Commission’s legitimacy derives from public trust, flowing from its neutrality, and fairness — not from acting like a political stakeholder with vested interests in how parties organize themselves internally. An umpire that expresses partisan interest ceases to be an umpire but interested stakeholder.

“What public good is served by deliberately abridging electoral timelines and shrinking democratic participation windows in ways that disproportionately suffocate young, growing, reform-oriented alternative political parties?

“Why would an electoral commission in a democracy appear more interested in administrative convenience than in expanding political inclusion and participation?

“Nigeria cannot claim to be practicing democracy while its electoral management body imposes electoral bottlenecks capable of strangulating emerging choices before they reach the ballot”, the statement added.

Justice Umar had while citing Section 31 of the Electoral Act, 2026 which permits political parties to withdraw and substitute candidates not later than 90 days to the conduct of an election, held that INEC lacks the powers to abridge or limit that statutory period by fixing earlier deadline for the withdrawal and replacement of candidates in its 2027 election timetable.

Justice Umar had also held that by provisions of Section 32 of the Electoral Act, 2026, INEC does not possess the statutory power to publish the final list of candidates for the 2027 general election before the 60 days minimum period prescribed by law.

“A declaration is made that upon the proper construction of Section 98 of the Electoral Act, 2026, the defendant does not possess the statutory authority to fix in its timetable for the 2027 general elections for campaign to end 2 days before the elections.

“A declaration is made that upon the proper interpretation to Section 33 of the Electoral Act, 2026, the time frame prescribed by the Defendant for submission of membership registers for the conduct of primary elections is NOT applicable to primary elections conducted for the purpose of replacing withdrawn candidates”.

Meanwhile, in another judgement of the same Federal High Court, Justice James Omotosho had ordered INEC to amend its revised time-table for the conduct of the 2027 general elections, in compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2026.

Omotosho in his judgement delivered on Tuesday had affirmed INEC’s powers to issue the said time-table for the 2027 general elections and even “alter it as it deems fit”.

Omotosho however, declared that INEC cannot in the process of fixing a time-table for election abridge the time-frame for parties to submit the names of their candidates for the 2027 general elections.

“Now the Presidential and National Assembly elections are fixed for January 16, 2027 while the Governorship and State Houses of Assembly elections are fixed for February 6, 2027.

“Calculating the period of deadline for submission of nominated candidates and the elections, it is clear that the deadlines set are greater than the 120 days allowed by the Electoral Act, 2026. For the period between the last date of submission of nomination forms for candidates for Presidential and National Assembly elections by political parties and the election itself is 140 days as stated in the timetable. While for the Governorship and House of Assembly elections It is 133 days.

“This implies that the time-table has reduced the time allowed by political parties by periods of 20 days and 13 days respectively. This is definitely not in line with the provisions of Section 29 (1) of the Electoral Act 2026. The Defendant cannot enlarge or reduce time frames contained in the Electoral Act. It can only issue the timetable to fall within the statutorily provided timelines.

“What this means is that political parties are at liberty to submit the names of candidates on or before 120 days to the elections which from my calculations are September 18, 2026 and October 9, 2026.

“In fact, they can decide to conduct their primary elections which must be within stipulated timeframe by the defendant and wait till the exact 120 days to the election before submitting the list of nominated candidates. They cannot be compelled to submit the nomination forms of their candidates before the 120 days to the elections”, Omotosho held.

The court further held that the commission cannot also abridge the timeframe for parties to substitute candidates in the forthcoming general elections.

“On issue of the time-frame for the substitution and withdrawal of nominated candidates, this is provided for under Section 31 of the Electoral Act, 2026 which provides: A candidate may withdraw his candidature by notice In writing signed by him together with a sworn affidavit delivered personally by the candidate to the political party that nominated him for the election and the political party shall convey such withdrawal and the sworn affidavit to the Commission not later than 90 days to the election.

“From the above, political parties are by law allowed the liberty to submit the withdrawal and sworn affidavit to the defendant not later than 90 days to the election.

“The defendant in the revised timetable however stipulated August 22, 2026 and September 19, 2026 as the date for candidates for Presidential and National Assembly elections and Governorship and House of Assembly. These dates are far larger than the 90 days allowed by the Electoral Act, 2026.

 “This means that the time-table has reduced the timeframe for parties to submit withdrawal to the defendant.

“The defendant therefore acted ultra vires its powers by reducing the time allowed by political parties to convey withdrawals and sworn affidavit to the defendant contrary to the 90 days stipulated by the Electoral Act, 2026”, the court held.

He subsequently declared that INEC “cannot lawfully abridge or vary the 90 days period for substitution of candidates under Section 31 of the Electoral Act, 2026.

“This honourable court hereby declares that the defendant cannot abridge the time stipulated in Section 29(1) of the Electoral Act, 2026 given to political parties to submit the names of their candidates at least 120 days to the date of election.

“This honourable court hereby declares that the defendant is hereby ordered to amend the Election Timetable 2027 and Schedule of Activities in compliance with Sections 29 (1) & 31 of the Electoral Act, 2026”, Omotosho held.