Federal High Court Rejects NDC's Recognition as Political Party

The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has issued a stern warning that Nigeria risks sliding into a one-party state, citing recent judicial pronouncements affecting opposition parties. This concern stems from two distinct Federal High Court rulings: one in Lokoja setting aside an earlier judgment that recognised the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) as a political party, and another in Abuja ordering the deregistration of the ADC and four other parties. These developments have ignited a debate among legal professionals and political stakeholders regarding judicial independence, the interpretation of electoral laws, and the implications for political pluralism ahead of the 2027 general elections. The ADC views these rulings as part of a coordinated effort to weaken opposition and consolidate power, challenging the integrity of Nigeria's multi-party democracy.

The political landscape in Nigeria is currently marked by heightened tensions following strong accusations from the African Democratic Congress (ADC) that the nation is on a perilous path towards a one-party state. This alarming pronouncement by the ADC is a direct response to two recent, significant rulings by the Federal High Court, which have collectively raised profound questions about the impartiality of the judiciary and the future of political pluralism in Africa's most populous democracy. The first ruling, emanating from the Federal High Court in Lokoja, set aside its own earlier judgment that had recognised the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) as a legitimate political party. Simultaneously, a separate Federal High Court in Abuja ordered the deregistration of the ADC itself, alongside four other opposition parties, for allegedly failing to meet constitutional performance thresholds.

These judicial interventions, particularly in the run-up to the 2027 general elections, have sparked considerable apprehension among opposition parties and civil society organisations. The ADC, through its National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, has vehemently argued that these decisions are not isolated incidents but rather form part of a broader, orchestrated campaign to stifle political competition and shrink the democratic space. This article delves into the legal underpinnings of these contentious rulings, examines their potential impact on Nigeria's multi-party system, and highlights the critical implications for legal practitioners navigating the evolving electoral jurisprudence.

The legal framework governing the registration and deregistration of political parties in Nigeria is primarily enshrined in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and the Electoral Act 2022. A pivotal amendment, the Fourth Alteration Act No. 9 of 2017, introduced Section 225A into the Constitution, which significantly empowered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister political parties. This section mandates INEC to deregister a political party if it breaches any registration requirement, fails 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 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.

The powers of INEC to deregister political parties under Section 225A have been consistently affirmed by the Supreme Court of Nigeria. Notable decisions, such as those involving the National Unity Party (NUP) and the Advanced Congress of Democrats (ACD), have upheld the constitutionality of this provision and INEC's authority to act when parties fail to meet the prescribed performance thresholds. These judgments established that while the right to form political associations is fundamental, it is not absolute and must be exercised within the constitutional limits set for maintaining a viable and competitive political landscape. This legal precedent forms the backdrop against which the recent Federal High Court rulings are being scrutinised, particularly concerning the procedural fairness and the perceived motivations behind such judicial interventions.

The recent judicial pronouncements have introduced significant complexities into Nigeria's electoral jurisprudence. The Federal High Court in Lokoja's decision to set aside its earlier judgment recognising the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) was predicated on procedural grounds, specifically the non-joinder of the Peace Movement Party (PMP), which claimed ownership of the logo used by the NDC. While procedural rectitude is a cornerstone of justice, the timing and impact of such a ruling, effectively nullifying a party's recognition, have been interpreted by the ADC as a deliberate attempt to destabilise opposition ahead of the 2027 elections. The NDC itself maintains that it remains a registered party until a direct deregistration order is issued, highlighting the legal uncertainty created.

Further compounding the concerns is the Federal High Court in Abuja's ruling by Justice Peter Lifu, which ordered the deregistration of the ADC, Accord Party, Action Alliance, Action Peoples Party, and Zenith Labour Party. This decision was based on their alleged failure to meet the electoral performance thresholds stipulated in Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and the Electoral Act 2022. The ADC has vehemently rejected this judgment, asserting that it contradicts INEC's own submissions to the court, which affirmed the party's compliance with registration requirements. Moreover, the ADC alleges that the trial court proceeded despite a subsisting Court of Appeal order for a stay of proceedings, raising serious questions about judicial hierarchy and due process.

A critical legal debate arising from these cases pertains to the standing of third-party litigants, such as the National Forum of Former Legislators in the Abuja case, to compel INEC to deregister political parties. While the Supreme Court has affirmed INEC's power to deregister, the extent to which private individuals or groups can initiate actions to force such deregistration, particularly when INEC itself has not made a determination, remains a contentious area. The Attorney-General of the Federation's involvement in supporting the suit against the five parties has also been questioned by the ADC, suggesting a potential executive influence on judicial processes.

The cumulative effect of these rulings, as articulated by the ADC, is a perceived narrowing of the democratic space and a weakening of opposition voices, which could ultimately lead to a de facto one-party state. This concern underscores the delicate balance between regulatory oversight aimed at streamlining the electoral process and safeguarding the constitutional right to freedom of association and political participation. The judiciary's role as an impartial arbiter is paramount in maintaining public confidence in the electoral system, and any perception of its weaponisation for partisan political objectives could have severe ramifications for Nigeria's constitutional democracy.

The recent court rulings concerning the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) and the deregistration of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) and four other parties represent a critical juncture for Nigeria's multi-party democracy. The ADC's warning of a looming one-party state, while politically charged, highlights legitimate concerns about the independence of the judiciary and the consistent application of electoral laws. The procedural issues surrounding the NDC ruling and the substantive challenges to the deregistration of the five parties underscore the need for meticulous adherence to due process and transparent judicial reasoning in all electoral matters.

For legal practitioners, these developments signal a heightened period of electoral litigation and the necessity for robust advocacy in defending the constitutional rights of political parties. It is imperative that the judiciary remains steadfast in its role as an impartial arbiter, resisting any perceived or actual attempts to use the courts for political ends. The integrity of the 2027 general elections and the long-term health of Nigeria's democratic institutions hinge on ensuring a level playing field for all political actors and upholding the principles of freedom of association and political participation.