Deregister ADC, Others, Risk National Crisis - - Timi Frank Warns

A recent Federal High Court judgment in Abuja has ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister the African Democratic Congress (ADC) and four other opposition political parties for failing to meet constitutional electoral thresholds. This decision, delivered by Justice Peter Lifu, is based on Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and the Electoral Act 2022, which mandate deregistration for parties failing to secure specific electoral performance benchmarks. The ruling has ignited significant controversy, with former APC Deputy National Publicity Secretary Timi Frank and the affected parties warning of a potential national crisis and an undermining of Nigeria's democratic foundations. The ADC has vowed to appeal the judgment, citing concerns about judicial overreach and a disregard for an existing Court of Appeal stay of proceedings.

Nigeria's political landscape is once again embroiled in a contentious legal battle following a Federal High Court order for the deregistration of five opposition political parties, including the prominent African Democratic Congress (ADC). The judgment, delivered by Justice Peter Lifu in Abuja, mandates the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to remove the ADC, Accord Party, Action Alliance (AA), Action Peoples Party (APP), and Zenith Labour Party (ZLP) from its register, citing their failure to meet constitutional electoral performance thresholds. This development has sparked immediate and strong reactions, with figures like former Deputy National Publicity Secretary of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Timi Frank, issuing a stark warning that such a move could precipitate a national crisis and erode the foundations of Nigeria's multi-party democracy.

The implications of this judicial directive extend far beyond the immediate fate of the affected parties, potentially reshaping the political calculus for the upcoming 2027 general elections and other off-cycle polls. Critics argue that the timing and nature of the judgment, particularly allegations of disregarding a Court of Appeal order for a stay of proceedings, raise serious questions about judicial independence and the shrinking democratic space. This article delves into the legal framework underpinning political party deregistration in Nigeria, examines the specific grounds for the recent court order, and analyzes the broader legal and political ramifications for the nation's democratic trajectory.

The power to register and deregister political parties in Nigeria is primarily vested in the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and the Electoral Act. Specifically, Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution (Fourth Alteration, No 9) Act, 2017, empowers INEC to deregister political parties on several grounds. These grounds include a breach of any of the requirements for registration as a political party, failure to win at least 25% of the votes cast in one state of the Federation in a presidential election, or 25% of the votes cast in one local government area of a state in a governorship election. Additionally, a party may be deregistered for failing 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.

Prior to this constitutional amendment, INEC's powers to deregister parties were often challenged, leading to court-ordered reinstatements. However, the Fourth Alteration to the Constitution solidified INEC's authority in this regard, aiming to streamline the political space and address the proliferation of unviable parties. This legislative intent has been consistently affirmed by the Supreme Court, which has upheld INEC's power to deregister parties that fail to meet these statutory thresholds. The current suit, instituted by the Incorporated Trustees of the National Forum of Former Legislators, sought to compel INEC to enforce these constitutional provisions against the five affected parties.

The recent Federal High Court judgment, delivered by Justice Peter Lifu, ordered the deregistration of the ADC and four other parties based on their alleged failure to meet the electoral performance benchmarks stipulated in Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and the Electoral Act 2022. The plaintiffs, the National Forum of Former Legislators, argued that these parties had not secured the requisite percentage of votes or elective seats in recent elections, thereby warranting their removal from INEC's register. This aligns with the established legal precedent set by the Supreme Court in cases such as *National Unity Party (NUP) & Anor v. Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC)*, where the apex court affirmed INEC's constitutional power to deregister parties for poor electoral performance.

However, the judgment is not without its controversies. The ADC, in rejecting the ruling, highlighted that the decision allegedly runs contrary to established legal precedents and even conflicts with positions previously advanced by INEC itself on party deregistration. More critically, reports indicate that the Federal High Court proceeded with the judgment despite an existing Court of Appeal order directing a halt to proceedings in the suit, pending the determination of an interlocutory appeal filed by the Accord Party. This raises significant procedural concerns regarding judicial hierarchy and adherence to due process, potentially forming a strong ground for appeal by the affected parties.

The warning of a potential 'national crisis' by Timi Frank and the ADC's description of the ruling as a 'direct invitation to anarchy' underscore the political sensitivity of party deregistration. While the legal framework aims to sanitize the political space and prevent the proliferation of unviable parties, its application, especially close to general elections, can be perceived as an attempt to stifle opposition and narrow the democratic field. The debate often revolves around balancing the constitutional imperative for viable political parties with the fundamental right to freedom of association and political participation. The judiciary's role in interpreting and enforcing these provisions, therefore, carries immense weight for the health of Nigeria's multi-party democracy.

Previous deregistration exercises by INEC, such as the delisting of 74 parties in 2020 and 22 parties in 2022, have consistently faced legal challenges, with the Supreme Court ultimately upholding INEC's powers. These cases, including *Advanced Congress of Democrats (ACD) & Ors v. INEC*, established the principle that Section 225A empowers INEC to deregister parties that fail to meet the constitutional thresholds. The current judgment, therefore, follows a pattern of judicial affirmation of INEC's regulatory powers, albeit with renewed scrutiny given the procedural questions raised by the alleged disregard of the Court of Appeal's stay order.

The Federal High Court's order for the deregistration of the African Democratic Congress and four other political parties marks a significant development in Nigeria's electoral jurisprudence, reinforcing the constitutional and statutory powers of INEC to regulate the political party landscape. While the judgment aligns with previous Supreme Court pronouncements affirming INEC's authority under Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the procedural concerns, particularly the alleged disregard for a Court of Appeal stay of proceedings, introduce a new layer of complexity and potential legal vulnerability.

For legal practitioners, this case highlights the critical importance of advising political parties on strict compliance with electoral performance thresholds to avoid deregistration. The impending appeals by the affected parties, including the ADC's stated intention to petition the National Judicial Council, will be crucial in clarifying the procedural aspects of such judgments and potentially re-evaluating the balance between regulatory efficiency and democratic inclusion. The outcome of these appeals will undoubtedly shape the political landscape leading up to the 2027 general elections and serve as a litmus test for the robustness and independence of Nigeria's judicial system in safeguarding democratic principles.