Deregistration of ADC, 4 others: Legal fireworks resume at Appeal Court today

The Court of Appeal in Abuja is set to hear substantive appeals challenging a Federal High Court judgment that ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister the African Democratic Congress (ADC) and four other political parties. The lower court's decision, initiated by a third-party litigant, cited the parties' alleged failure to meet the electoral performance thresholds stipulated in Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and the Electoral Act 2022. This development reignites legal debates surrounding INEC's powers of deregistration, judicial oversight, and the procedural fairness accorded to political parties, particularly in light of previous Supreme Court pronouncements affirming INEC's constitutional authority in this regard.

Legal fireworks have resumed at the Court of Appeal in Abuja, where a three-member panel, led by Justice Abba Mohammed, is poised to hear substantive appeals seeking to overturn a Federal High Court judgment. This judgment had directed the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister the African Democratic Congress (ADC) and four other political parties: Accord, Action Alliance (AA), Action Peoples Party (APP), and Zenith Labour Party (ZLP) [4, 2]. The appeals represent a critical juncture in Nigeria's electoral jurisprudence, as they delve into the intricate balance between constitutional provisions for political party regulation and the fundamental right to association. The outcome will significantly impact the landscape of multi-party democracy in Nigeria, influencing the operational viability of numerous political associations and clarifying the boundaries of judicial intervention in electoral matters.

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. Historically, the power of INEC to deregister political parties was a contentious issue, with early judicial pronouncements, such as in *National Assembly v. INEC (2012)*, often limiting INEC's discretion. However, a significant shift occurred with the Fourth Alteration to the 1999 Constitution, which introduced Section 225A in 2018 [3, 20]. This crucial amendment explicitly empowers INEC to deregister political parties on specific grounds related to electoral performance. These grounds include the failure to win at least 25% of the votes cast in one state in a presidential election, or 25% of the votes cast in one local government area in a governorship election, or failure to secure at least one ward in a chairmanship election, one seat in the National or State House of Assembly, or one seat in a councillorship election [3, 20]. The Electoral Act 2022 further reinforces these provisions, providing the statutory machinery for their implementation and even stipulating that a deregistered party's identity cannot be used for five years [4, 10, 13]. This legislative evolution reflects a deliberate effort to streamline the political space, address the proliferation of unviable political parties, and ensure that only parties with a demonstrable level of public support remain on the electoral register.

The Federal High Court judgment, delivered by Justice Peter Lifu in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2637/2026, found merit in the application filed by the National Forum of Former Legislators (NFFL) [4]. The NFFL argued that the five political parties had persistently failed to meet the constitutional benchmarks for continued existence as registered political parties, particularly their poor performance in the 2023 general elections and subsequent by-elections [4]. Consequently, Justice Lifu ordered their deregistration and barred them from participating in future elections, including the 2027 general elections, directing INEC to remove them from its register [2, 4].

However, the Court of Appeal quickly intervened, granting a stay of execution of the High Court's judgment. More significantly, the appellate court, led by Justice Abba Mohammed, severely reprimanded Justice Lifu for proceeding with the judgment despite an existing order from the Court of Appeal directing a stay of proceedings in the case [4, 5]. The appellate court characterized Justice Lifu's action as “judicial impertinence” and “judicial rascality,” emphasizing that such conduct undermines judicial hierarchy and due process [4]. This strong rebuke highlights a critical procedural issue that will likely form a significant part of the appeals.

Central to the substantive appeals is the interpretation and application of Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and the Electoral Act 2022. The Supreme Court, in the landmark case of *National Unity Party (NUP) v. INEC* (2021), definitively affirmed INEC's constitutional power to deregister political parties that fail to meet the prescribed electoral performance thresholds [3, 7, 19, 20]. This ruling effectively settled the long-standing debate on INEC's competence to deregister parties, overturning previous Court of Appeal decisions that had sometimes nullified deregistration on procedural grounds [11, 14]. The *NUP v. INEC* decision serves as a crucial precedent, establishing the constitutionality of the deregistration power itself.

Nonetheless, the current appeals present unique dimensions. The fact that a third-party litigant (NFFL), rather than INEC, initiated the suit compelling deregistration raises questions about the scope of judicial compulsion versus INEC's administrative discretion [9]. While the Supreme Court has affirmed INEC's *power* to deregister, the question of whether a court can *mandate* INEC to deregister at the instance of a third party, even if the constitutional conditions are met, remains a point of contention [9]. Furthermore, the appellants are likely to challenge the factual basis of their alleged electoral failures and argue that due process, as emphasized by the Court of Appeal's earlier criticism, was not adequately followed by the trial court. The appeals will also implicitly weigh the state's interest in a streamlined political system against the constitutional right to freedom of association and the promotion of political plurality [6, 18].

The ongoing appeals at the Court of Appeal regarding the deregistration of ADC and four other political parties are poised to deliver significant pronouncements on the interplay between constitutional powers, statutory provisions, and judicial oversight in Nigeria's electoral system. While the Supreme Court has unequivocally affirmed INEC's power to deregister parties based on electoral performance, the current appeals will test the procedural rectitude of such actions, particularly when initiated by third parties and when lower courts are perceived to have disregarded judicial hierarchy. Practitioners should closely monitor the Court of Appeal's decision, as it will provide further clarity on the procedural safeguards available to political parties facing deregistration and the precise role of the judiciary in compelling INEC's constitutional duties. The outcome will undoubtedly shape the future of political party formation and sustainability in Nigeria, reinforcing the need for parties to maintain a verifiable electoral presence to retain their registration and for judicial processes to strictly adhere to established legal principles and hierarchy.