2027 elections: CSOs kick against INEC’s appeal of judgment nullifying portions of timetable

Leaders of the coalition of groups, under the Movement for Credible Election (MCE), have kicked against the appeal filed by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) over the judgment nullifying portions of its timetable and schedule of activities for the 2027 general election.

The coalition, led by some prominent politicians and activists, demanded that the commission immediately dropped the appeal to affirm its status as an unbiased electoral umpire.

The position of the coalition was containing  in document signed by a former member of the House of Representatives, Dr Usman Bugaje; a former minister of education, Dr Oby Ezekwesili; Hadjia Bilikisu Magiro and Comrade Olawale Okunniyi, on behalf of MCE and other Civil Society Organisation (CSO) leaders.

The signatories are chairman, co-chairman, deputy chairman and head of national secretariat of MCE respectively.

The statement was titled: “INEC is Wrong To Appeal Judgment Nullifying Aspects of its Timetable for 2027 Elections.”

They noted with concern reports that the commission has appealed the declaratory judgment of Honourable Justice Umar, which nullified portions of INEC’s timetable and schedule of activities for the 2027 general election.

They also expressed worry that the commission is seeking a “stay” of the judgment, pending the determination of the appeal.

They said MCE, as a civic organisation committed to electoral integrity, hinged its call on INEC not to proceed with the appeal because the judgment is declaratory and cannot be stayed.

They said the judgment does not impose new obligations on INEC as it merely restates the clear provision of Section 29 of the Electoral Act, which allows parties to submit their final list of candidates not later than 120 days before the election.

ALSO READ: BREAKING: Atiku wins ADC presidential primary

“A declaratory judgment cannot be ‘stayed.’ Attempting to appeal such a judgment raises the question of whether the commission is seeking to overturn the law itself, instead of clarifying its application and in whose interest,” the CSOs leaders stated

Besides, they claimed that the commission does not require early submission of candidates’ names since INEC prints ballot papers using party names and logos, not the names of candidates.

“There is, therefore, no operational basis for compelling political parties to conclude primaries in May or submit candidates’ lists months earlier than the law requires,” they noted.

They added that an unnecessarily early timeline only creates avoidable pressure on political parties, undermines internal democracy, and increases the risk of procedural errors that will later fuel pre-election litigation.

They asserted that the credibility of the commission rests on its status as a neutral arbiter and umpire because public trust is the most valuable asset of any electoral umpire.

“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. Such perceptions — even if unintended — can weaken trust and confidence among political actors and voters ahead of the 2027 elections,” they said.

Another ground the leaders rejected the INEC’s appeal is what they perceived as the low level of public confidence in the commission.

They claimed that recent data including Afrobarometer’s 2023 survey, which showed that only 23 percent of Nigerians expressed trust in INEC, as underscoring the significance of the public concern.

 “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,” the leaders added.

“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.”

The leaders equally argued that the mandate of INEC is to enforce the law, not contest it, stressing: “Appealing a judgment that merely affirms [and clarifies] the Electoral Act may be interpreted as the Commission taking sides. This perception alone can damage the legitimacy of the electoral process.”

Therefore, the CSOs’ leaders advised the commission to accept the judgment and focus on delivering credible elections.

“We call on INEC to accept Justice Umar’s judgment, 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,” they emphasised.

“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 organise 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.”