Court of Appeal Hears ADC, Accord Party Appeals against Deregistration

The Court of Appeal, Abuja division, is set to hear appeals from the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Accord Party, and three other political parties challenging their deregistration. The Federal High Court had ordered their deregistration, citing their failure to meet constitutional thresholds under Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and the Electoral Act 2022, which mandate winning a certain percentage of votes or elective seats. This decision was made despite opposition from the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), which argued the parties had met the requirements. The appellate court had previously stayed the execution of the lower court's judgment, criticizing the trial judge for proceeding despite a subsisting order to suspend proceedings, highlighting a significant judicial tussle over electoral integrity and party plurality in Nigeria.

The Nigerian political landscape is currently gripped by a significant legal battle as the Court of Appeal, Abuja division, prepares to hear appeals from five political parties challenging their recent deregistration. The African Democratic Congress (ADC), Accord Party, Action Alliance (AA), Action Peoples Party (APP), and Zenith Labour Party (ZLP) are contesting a Federal High Court judgment that ordered their removal from the register of political parties. This development has ignited debates on the powers of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), judicial oversight, and the future of multi-party democracy in Nigeria.

The appeals, scheduled for July 7, stem from a suit initiated by the National Forum of Former Legislators (NFFL), which successfully argued at the Federal High Court that these parties failed to meet the electoral performance benchmarks stipulated by the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and the Electoral Act 2022. Curiously, INEC, the statutory body empowered to regulate political parties, had initially opposed the deregistration, asserting that the parties had indeed met the constitutional requirements. The Court of Appeal's intervention, including a stay of execution of the lower court's order and a strong rebuke of the trial judge for judicial impropriety, underscores the complexity and high stakes of this legal challenge.

This article will delve into the statutory and doctrinal context of political party deregistration in Nigeria, analyze the conflicting judicial pronouncements and the arguments presented by the parties, and explore the broader implications for electoral law and democratic practice.

The legal framework governing the registration and deregistration of political parties in Nigeria is primarily enshrined in the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and the Electoral Act 2022. Section 225A of the Constitution, introduced through the Fourth Alteration, empowers INEC to deregister political parties on specific grounds. These grounds include a party's failure to win at least 25 percent of the votes cast in one state of the federation in a presidential election, or 25 percent of the votes cast in one local government area of a state in a governorship election. Additionally, a party can be deregistered if it fails to win at least one ward in a chairmanship election, one seat in the National or State Assembly election, or one seat in a councillorship election.

Historically, the power of INEC to deregister political parties has been a contentious issue. Early judicial pronouncements, such as in *INEC & Anor V. Balarabe Musa & Ors* (2003) 3 NWLR (Pt 806) 72, initially limited INEC's powers, holding that the commission lacked the constitutional authority to issue guidelines for party registration beyond what was explicitly stated in the Constitution. However, subsequent constitutional amendments and Supreme Court decisions have affirmed INEC's powers to deregister parties that fail to meet the statutory thresholds. For instance, in 2020, the Supreme Court upheld the deregistration of 74 political parties, including the National Unity Party (NUP), for their inability to win any election after the 2019 general polls, thereby reinforcing the constitutionality of Section 225A.

The Electoral Act 2022 further reinforces these provisions, outlining the procedures and conditions for party registration and deregistration. The Act aims to streamline the electoral process and ensure that only viable political entities participate, thereby preventing the proliferation of parties that do not command significant public support. This legislative and judicial history forms the backdrop against which the current appeals are being heard, with the core legal question revolving around the proper interpretation and application of these constitutional and statutory provisions.

The recent deregistration order by Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court, Abuja, against the ADC, Accord, and three other parties, has ignited a fresh wave of legal and political controversy. The NFFL, as plaintiff, successfully argued that these parties failed to meet the electoral performance benchmarks outlined in Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution and the Electoral Act 2022, particularly their performance in the 2023 general elections and subsequent by-elections. This judgment, if allowed to stand, would have significant implications for the 2027 general elections, potentially disqualifying candidates already nominated by these parties.

However, a critical aspect of this case is INEC's initial stance. The electoral body, through its counsel, opposed the deregistration, presenting evidence that some of the affected parties had, in fact, won various seats in state legislatures and the National Assembly, thereby meeting the constitutional requirements. This creates a direct contradiction between the Federal High Court's finding and INEC's assessment, raising questions about the factual basis of the deregistration order. The Accord Party, for instance, explicitly stated that it had elected officials at various levels and had met the constitutional provisions, dismissing calls for its deregistration as baseless.

Furthermore, the Court of Appeal's intervention has introduced a significant procedural dimension. The appellate court not only ordered a stay of execution of Justice Lifu's judgment but also strongly criticized the trial judge for proceeding with the matter despite an earlier directive to suspend proceedings pending the resolution of an appeal before it. The Court of Appeal described Justice Lifu's action as an "affront" and "judicial rascality" on the hierarchy of courts, underscoring concerns about judicial overreach and adherence to due process. This procedural irregularity is likely to be a central plank of the appellants' arguments before the Court of Appeal on July 7.

The appeals will likely hinge on two main fronts: the substantive argument regarding whether the deregistered parties truly failed to meet the constitutional and statutory performance thresholds, and the procedural argument concerning the Federal High Court's alleged disregard for the Court of Appeal's stay of proceedings order. The Supreme Court's previous affirmations of INEC's deregistration powers, such as in the *National Unity Party* case, establish a strong precedent for the constitutionality of Section 225A. However, the specific facts of each party's electoral performance, coupled with the procedural impropriety alleged against the trial court, will be crucial in determining the outcome of these appeals. The Attorney-General of the Federation also joined the suit, supporting the NFFL's position, adding another layer of complexity to the legal tussle.

The upcoming hearing at the Court of Appeal on July 7 represents a pivotal moment for the African Democratic Congress, Accord Party, and the three other affected political parties, as well as for the broader Nigerian democratic process. Practitioners should closely monitor the appellate court's decision, as it will clarify the interplay between constitutional provisions, electoral statutes, and judicial powers concerning political party deregistration. The outcome will not only determine the fate of these five parties but also set important precedents for the interpretation of electoral performance thresholds and the enforcement of judicial hierarchy.

Attorneys advising political parties and electoral stakeholders must pay keen attention to the Court of Appeal's pronouncements, particularly on the weight given to INEC's independent assessment of party compliance versus a private litigant's claims, and the implications of a lower court disregarding a higher court's order. This case underscores the need for meticulous adherence to electoral laws and judicial procedures, reinforcing the principle that while the power to deregister parties exists to sanitize the political space, it must be exercised with utmost regard for due process and the rule of law to safeguard the integrity of Nigeria's multi-party democracy.