JUST IN: Appeal Court nullifies ruling ordering deregistration of ADC, four others

The Court of Appeal in Abuja has set aside a 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.

In a unanimous decision delivered by a three-member panel of justices, the appellate court ruled that the order issued by the Federal High Court on June 15 was null and void.

The court held that the lower court wrongly assumed jurisdiction over the matter and acted on an incompetent suit filed by a non-juristic entity. It stated that there was no valid suit to justify the directive ordering INEC to deregister the affected political parties.

According to the appellate court, the trial court failed to properly evaluate the evidence presented before it, noting that proof showing the parties had won seats in previous elections was disregarded. It further ruled that the Federal High Court acted in defiance of an earlier order instructing it to stay proceedings in the case.

The appellate court concluded that the lower court should have dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction and merit.

In the lead judgment delivered by Justice Abba Mohammed, the court declared that all the affected political parties remain duly registered. It also upheld the appeals filed by the parties and awarded costs against the National Forum of Former Legislators (NFFL), which had initiated the suit.

The parties affected by the ruling include the ADC, Action Peoples Party (APP), Action Alliance (AA), Accord Party (AP), and the Zenith Labour Party (ZLP).

It will be recalled that on June 16, the Court of Appeal had already ordered a stay of execution of the High Court’s judgment and criticized the trial judge for disregarding judicial hierarchy.

The appellate panel faulted Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court, Abuja, for ignoring its May 22 directive to suspend proceedings pending the outcome of an appeal. The court noted that despite being aware of the stay order, the judge proceeded to deliver judgment.

Describing the action, the court held that it amounted to “a form of judicial impertinence,” adding that the Supreme Court had previously ruled that a judge who behaves in such a manner “is unfit for the bench, as the conduct amounts to judicial rascality”.

Earlier, the Federal High Court had ordered INEC to deregister the five political parties, citing their alleged failure to meet constitutional requirements for continued existence and participation in future elections. The court also barred INEC from recognizing the parties, accepting their candidates, or allowing them to participate in the 2027 general elections.

Justice Lifu had further directed the parties to stop presenting themselves as registered political entities, having found merit in the suit filed by the NFFL.

In the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2637/2026, the NFFL asked the court to determine whether INEC has a constitutional obligation to deregister political parties that fail to meet electoral performance thresholds outlined in Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), as well as provisions of the Electoral Act 2022 and INEC regulations.

The plaintiffs argued that the affected parties consistently failed to meet the required benchmarks, including securing at least 25 per cent of votes in a state during a presidential election or winning at least one elective seat at the national, state, or local government level.

They maintained that the ADC and the other parties performed poorly in the 2023 general elections and subsequent by-elections, failing to secure representation across key levels of government. As a result, they claimed the parties’ continued existence undermined the integrity of the electoral system.

The Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, who was also a defendant in the case, supported the plaintiffs’ position. He argued that allowing the parties to remain registered violated provisions of the Constitution and weakened the country’s electoral framework.

The AGF further contended that without judicial intervention, INEC would continue to breach its constitutional duty by retaining parties that failed to meet the minimum legal requirements.

However, dissatisfied with the Federal High Court’s ruling, all the defendants, including INEC, appealed the decision—leading to its eventual reversal by the Court of Appeal.