From Godwin Tsa, Abuja
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.
A three-member panel of the appellate court held, in a unanimous decision, that the order the Federal High Court issued to the electoral body on June 15 amounted to a nullity, ruling that the high court wrongly assumed jurisdiction on an incompetent suit filed by a non-juristic entity.
The appellate court held that no valid suit existed to warrant the consequential order directing INEC to derecognise the parties. It found that the trial court failed to properly evaluate evidence before it, noting that proof the parties had won various seats in previous elections was disregarded. The panel further held that the high court acted in defiance of an earlier order to stay proceedings, and ought to have dismissed the substantive case for want of jurisdiction and merit.
In the lead judgment delivered by Justice Abba Mohammed, the appellate court held that all the affected political parties remained duly registered. It allowed separate appeals filed by the parties and awarded monetary costs against the National Forum of Former Legislators (NFFL), which had filed the original case against them.
Aside from the ADC, the other parties whose registration was restored are the Action Peoples Party (APP), Action Alliance (AA), Accord Party (AP), and the Zenith Labour Party (ZLP).
The appellate court had, on June 16, ordered a stay of execution of the High Court judgment while faulting the trial judge for disregarding judicial hierarchy. The panel berated Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja for disobeying its May 22 order directing him to stay proceedings pending the outcome of the parties’ appeal, noting that he had gone ahead to deliver judgment despite being aware of the stay order.
The appellate court described Justice Lifu’s conduct as “a form of judicial impertinence,” citing an earlier Supreme Court holding that a judge who acts in such a manner “is unfit for the bench, as the conduct amounts to judicial rascality.”
The High Court had earlier directed INEC to deregister the five parties over their alleged failure to meet constitutional requirements for continued existence and participation in future elections, and had barred INEC from recognising them, accepting their candidate nominations, or giving effect to their activities for the 2027 general elections. Justice Lifu had also ordered the parties to stop parading themselves as registered political parties, saying he found merit in NFFL’s suit.
The NFFL, in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2637/2026, had asked the court to determine whether INEC has a constitutional obligation to remove parties that fail to meet the electoral performance thresholds under Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), as reinforced by the Electoral Act 2022 and INEC’s regulations. It argued that the parties failed to meet the constitutional benchmarks — winning at least 25 per cent of votes in a state during a presidential election, or at least one elective seat at the national, state, or local government level — and had performed poorly in both the 2023 general elections and subsequent by-elections.
Notably, the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN — also a defendant in the matter — had backed the plaintiffs, arguing in court processes that the parties’ continued existence violated the 1999 Constitution and undermined the nation’s electoral integrity.
Dissatisfied with the trial court’s verdict, all the defendants, including INEC, had urged the appellate court to set it aside.
(The Sun)