The Independent National Electoral Commission has filed a Notice of Appeal challenging the judgment of the Federal High Court, Abuja, which nullified part of the election guidelines put in place by the commission for the conduct of the 2027 general elections.

Filing the notice at the Court of Appeal, Abuja Judicial Division, the electoral body sought to overturn the high court judgment delivered on May 20.

Justice Muhammed Umar of the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja,  while delivering judgment in a suit filed by the Youth Party, nullified part of the guidelines issued by INEC, directing political parties to submit their membership registers and databases by May 10 as a condition for participation in the 2027 general elections.

The political party had, in a suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/517/2026 between the Youth Party and INEC, challenged the legality of the electoral body’s directive.

The court held in its judgment that INEC could not lawfully shorten the timeline already provided under Section 29(1) of the Electoral Act 2026 for the submission of party membership records and candidates’ particulars.

However, INEC, in its appeal dated May 25, asked the appellate court to issue an order setting aside the decision of the lower court, which nullified its revised timetable and schedule of activities for the 2027 general elections.

According to the Notice of Appeal, INEC stated that it was “dissatisfied with the judgment delivered by the Federal High Court, sitting in Abuja, FCT (by Hon Justice M.G.Umar) on 20th May 2026, in suit no. FHC/ABJ/CS/517/2026 between Youth Party vs Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) doth hereby appeal to the Court of Appeal.”

The commission in the appeal is asking the appellate court to determine its appeal predicated on nine grounds and grant orders allowing the appeal.

INEC argued that its preliminary objection was not fully determined, as it also alleged a denial of fair hearing.

On jurisdiction, INEC said the trial court failed to rule on all issues it raised in its preliminary objection.

It stated in ground one that, “The learned trial Judge erred in law when he failed to pronounce on the jurisdictional issue of the suit being hypothetic and academic, which failure occasioned denial of fair hearing to the appellant.”

INEC maintained that two jurisdictional issues were raised, locus standi and whether the suit was academic, but only one was determined, arguing that failure to rule on all issues amounted to a denial of fair hearing.

INEC challenged the trial court’s finding that the Youth Party had the legal standing to sue.

The court had held that, “The plaintiff has the right to come to court for redress. This court is of the firm view that the plaintiff has locus standi to approach the court and express its grievances for the law to take its course.”

INEC, however, argued that the respondent’s affidavit did not disclose sufficient personal injury or interest, maintaining that the trial court wrongly relied on the affidavit evidence to confer locus standi.

INEC challenged the trial court’s holding that it was not mandated to impose a timeframe for political parties to conduct their primaries, provided that it will be done and submitted not later than the 120 days provided by the Electoral Act,2026.

The commission also argued that its timetable did not impose unlawful deadlines but operated within statutory limits.

It stated that Section 29(1) does not require submission of candidates exactly 120 days before elections and that submissions can be made earlier.

INEC further insisted that its timetable: “Exhibit INEC 1 did not contradict sections 29(1), 82, and 84(1)of the Electoral Act 2026.”

INEC further argued that the trial court failed to properly apply Section 151 of the Electoral Act, which empowers it to issue regulations and guidelines.

The judgment had acknowledged that “The commission may, subject to the provisions of this Act, issue regulations, guidelines, or manuals for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of this Act and for its administration.”

However, the commission said the court still concluded that parts of INEC’s timetable were inconsistent with the Act.

INEC described this finding as erroneous, insisting the timetable was a valid exercise of statutory power.

The commission also faulted the trial court’s reliance on alleged inconsistencies between the Electoral Act and its timetable.

“The timelines as contained in the exhibits have tactically altered the latitudes allowed by the political parties by the Electoral Act, 2026. This should not be allowed,” it said.

INEC argued that no specific inconsistency was identified and that the conclusion was speculative.

INEC accused the trial court of disregarding binding Supreme Court and Court of Appeal decisions.

“By the doctrine of stare decisis, the learned trial judge was bound by the above cases which were cited to him, but he refused or failed to follow the same,” it added.

INEC on this ground sought the following reliefs: an order allowing its appeal and setting aside the judgment delivered by the trial Federal High Court.

The electoral body also sought an order striking out the suit, insisting that the respondent lacked the locus standi to institute and maintain the same and that the suit is academic.

In a  motion for stay of execution filed alongside the appeal, INEC is seeking a stay of execution of the Federal High Court judgment pending the determination of the appeal.

The motion, which is brought pursuant to Sections 6 and 36 of the Constitution and relevant procedural rules, seeks the following:

“An order staying the execution and/or further execution of the judgment of this honourable court delivered on the 20th day of May, 2026, pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.”

INEC argued that enforcing the judgment would disrupt preparations for the 2027 general elections.

“If the judgment of this honourable court is enforced or executed before the hearing and determination of the appeal, the entire electoral architecture and preparations for the 2027 general elections will be thrown into confusion, the appeal will be rendered nugatory,” the commission stated.