The Court of Appeal in Abuja has vacated the judgment that directed the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister the African Democratic Congress (ADC) and four other political parties accused of failing to meet constitutional requirements.
The appellate court, in a unanimous decision by a three-member panel of justices, held that the order which the Federal High Court issued to the electoral body on June 15 amounted to a nullity.
It held that the high court wrongly assumed jurisdiction and made the order on an incompetent suit that was filed by a non-juristic entity.
According to the appellate court, there was no valid suit that could have warranted the consequential order that directed INEC to derecognise the political parties.
It noted that the trial court failed to properly evaluate evidence placed before it, stressing that proof that the parties won various seats in previous elections was ignored.
It also held that the high court acted in defiance of an order that directed it to stay proceedings in the case.
It held that the high court ought to have dismissed the substantive case for want of jurisdiction and merit.
Consequently, the appellate court, in its lead judgment delivered by Justice Abba Mohammed, held that all the affected political parties remained duly registered.
It allowed separate appeals filed by the political parties and awarded monetary costs against the National Forum of Former Legislators (NFFL), which had filed the case against them.
Aside from the ADC, the other parties whose registration the appellate court restored are the Action Peoples Party (APP), Action Alliance (AA), Accord Party (AP), and the Zenith Labour Party (ZLP).
It will be recalled that the appellate court had, on June 16, ordered a stay of execution of the High Court judgment, even as it slammed the trial judge for disregarding the judicial hierarchy.
The panel berated Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja for disobeying an order it had made on May 22 directing him to stay proceedings in the case pending the outcome of an appeal by the parties.
It noted that even though the trial judge’s attention had been drawn to the order for a stay of proceedings, he intentionally flouted it and went ahead to deliver judgment.
It held that Justice Lifu’s action was “a form of judicial impertinence”, stressing that the Supreme Court had previously held that a judge who acts in such a manner “is unfit for the bench, as the conduct amounts to judicial rascality”.
It will be recalled that the High Court had directed INEC to deregister the five political parties, which it said had failed to meet the constitutional requirements needed to warrant their continued existence and participation in future elections.
It also barred INEC from according further recognition to the parties, accepting nominations of candidates from the affected parties, or giving effect to their activities for purposes of participating in the 2027 general elections.
Justice Lifu ordered the defendants to stop parading themselves as registered political parties in the country, saying he found merit in the suit filed by the NFFL.
The NFFL had, in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2637/2026, asked the court to determine whether INEC has a constitutional obligation to remove political parties that fail to meet the electoral performance thresholds set out in Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), as reinforced by the Electoral Act 2022 and INEC’s regulations.
It was the plaintiffs’ position that the five political parties listed as defendants had persistently failed to meet the constitutional benchmarks required to retain their registration.
The former legislators stressed that the requirements include winning at least 25 per cent of the votes in a state during a presidential election, or securing at least one elective seat at the national, state, or local government level.
They told the court that the ADC and the four other parties had performed poorly in both the 2023 general elections and the by-elections conducted by INEC, thereby failing to win seats across key tiers of government.
The litigants insisted that the continued existence of the ADC and the other defendants as recognised political parties is unlawful and undermines the integrity of the country’s electoral system.
Notably, the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, who is also a defendant in the matter, threw his weight behind the plaintiffs.
In processes filed before the court, the AGF argued that the continued existence of the said political parties violates extant provisions of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and ultimately undermines the nation’s electoral integrity.
The AGF argued that unless the court intervened, INEC would continue to act in breach of its constitutional duty by retaining parties that had failed to meet the minimum requirements prescribed by law.
However, dissatisfied with the trial court’s verdict, all the defendants, including INEC, have urged the appellate court to set it aside.
