The Court of Appeal in Abuja has reserved judgment in two separate appeals over dispute surrounding the timetable for the conduct of the 2027 elections released by the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC.
Three-member justices of the appellate court, in a judgment delivered by Justice Adebukola Bankole on Wednesday, held that judgments would be reserved in the appeals.
According to her, 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 two Federal High Courts in Abuja, to nullify the timetable released for the 2027 elections by INEC.
While Justice Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court granted the reliefs sought in the suit by YPN and nullified the election guidelines by INEC, Justice James Omotosho, in the suit filed by SDP, granted some reliefs in favor of the party and some others in favour of the electoral umpire.
Not satisfied by the two judgements, INEC approached the Court of Appeal to set aside the judgment of Justice Umar and part of the judgment of Justice Omotosho which limited INEC’s power regarding the conduct of elections.
During the hearing of the appeals, Dr Alex Izinyon, SAN, led two other SANs, from INEC to argue the appeals. Izinyon, in his submission before the appellate court contended that INEC had the power as provided by the law under the provisions of the 1999 Constitution and the Electoral Act to issue guidelines for the elections.
“The constitution, specifically, empowered INEC to organise, 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 organise and supervise elections, and this include timetable for elections to carry out political activities preceding the elections.
Also Read: Court sets July 7 for hearing on Duke’s PRP candidacy
“The trial court failed to give effect to the phrase ‘not later than 120 days and not more than 90 days’, 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 120 days, was too mathematical and not the intendment of the lawmakers as any of the activities can be done before the 120 days 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.
He said the same goes for the 90-day provisions, adding that the reliefs sought by the respondents 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 senior lawyer said. Izinyon said the second appeal was filed by SDP and the judgment delivered by Justice 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,” he added.
Before the main appeal was argued, Izinyon moved three applications. One of applications prayed 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 earlier.
He argued that the court should hold that they had no written briefs in opposition to the appellant’s 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.
He said the rule states that no time shall be extended for default under the same paragraph. The YPN’s 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.
Izinyon equally opposed the motion by Irokosun, praying the court to grant them an extension of time to file their respondent brief. He argued that there was no extension of time to file respondent brief when the time provided by the rules had elapsed.
He cited a plethora of Supreme Court and Court of Appeal cases to back his argument, insisting that no discretion could be exercised in that regard.
