Federal High Court Rejects NDC's Registration

The Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) is embroiled in a significant legal battle following a Federal High Court ruling in Lokoja that set aside an earlier judgment which had facilitated its registration by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). This recent decision, prompted by the non-joinder of the Peace Movement Party (PMP) in the initial suit, effectively nullifies the NDC's legal status, despite the party having engaged in extensive political activities, including internal elections and candidate primaries for the 2027 general elections. The Ondo State chapter of the NDC, alongside its national leadership, has vehemently rejected the ruling, vowing to continue its operations and pursue an immediate appeal. This development highlights the intricate and often contentious landscape of political party regulation and judicial intervention in Nigeria's electoral process, raising critical questions about party stability and the integrity of pre-election preparations.

The political landscape in Nigeria has been stirred by a recent judicial pronouncement concerning the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC), as its Ondo State chapter, supported by the national leadership, has vociferously challenged a Federal High Court ruling that effectively nullified the party's registration. This development comes after the NDC had, for months, operated as a legally recognized entity, undertaking various statutory political activities in preparation for the upcoming 2027 general elections. The conflicting positions—a court order setting aside registration versus the party's insistence on its continued legality—underscore the persistent tensions between judicial authority, electoral administration, and the constitutional right to political association in Nigeria.

At the heart of the controversy is a decision by the Federal High Court in Lokoja, Kogi State, which revisited and vacated its December 2025 judgment that had initially directed the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to register the NDC. This reversal, predicated on procedural grounds related to the non-joinder of an interested party, has plunged the NDC's status into uncertainty. The party's defiant stance, particularly from its Ondo chapter and the broader national leadership, signals a protracted legal and political struggle, with significant implications for its participation in future elections and the broader stability of Nigeria's multi-party democracy.

This article delves into the legal framework governing political party registration and deregistration in Nigeria, analyzes the implications of the Lokoja Federal High Court's ruling, and examines the potential ramifications for the NDC and other political entities navigating the country's complex electoral jurisprudence. It will explore the constitutional and statutory powers of INEC, the role of the judiciary in electoral matters, and the practical challenges faced by political parties amidst such legal uncertainties.

The regulatory framework for political parties in Nigeria is primarily enshrined in the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and the Electoral Act 2022. These instruments empower the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) with the authority to register and oversee political parties, ensuring they meet specific constitutional and statutory requirements. Section 221 of the Constitution stipulates that only political parties can canvass for votes or contribute to election funds, while Section 222 outlines conditions for an association to function as a political party, including registration of national officers and its constitution with INEC, and open membership.

INEC's powers extend to the deregistration of political parties under Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution. This section provides grounds for deregistration, such as a breach of registration requirements, failure to win at least 25 percent of votes in one state in a presidential election, or in one local government in a governorship election, or at least one seat in the National or State House of Assembly or councillorship election. The Supreme Court has consistently affirmed INEC's constitutional competence to deregister political parties that fail to meet these performance thresholds, notably in the case of the National Unity Party (NUP) in 2021. However, such deregistration must adhere strictly to due process and the provisions of the law.

The Electoral Act 2022 further refines the regulatory landscape, introducing novel provisions aimed at enhancing the credibility of elections and promoting internal democracy within political parties. It mandates early funding for elections, increases timeframes for various electoral activities, and expands INEC's oversight functions. The Act also clarifies procedures for candidate nomination and substitution, aiming to prevent arbitrary actions by parties. This robust legal architecture is designed to ensure that only viable and democratically structured political parties participate in the electoral process, although its application often leads to contentious legal challenges.

The recent decision by the Federal High Court in Lokoja to set aside its earlier judgment, which had compelled INEC to register the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC), introduces a significant layer of legal uncertainty. The court's rationale for vacating its December 2025 order was the non-joinder of the Peace Movement Party (PMP), an entity whose interests were deemed directly affected by the initial registration directive, possibly due to a logo dispute. This procedural defect, while seemingly technical, is a fundamental principle of natural justice, ensuring all affected parties have a right to be heard. The judge, Isah Dashen, consequently ordered a fresh commencement of the substantive suit, effectively restoring the parties to their pre-December 2025 positions.

The NDC's national leadership, including its National Chairman Moses Zuwoghe and National Leader Senator Henry Seriake Dickson, has vehemently rejected this ruling. They argue that INEC had already complied with the initial judgment by registering the party in February 2026 and issuing a certificate. Following this registration, the NDC embarked on extensive political activities, including digital membership registration, ward to national level congresses, conventions, and the conduct of primaries for the 2027 general elections, all of which were monitored by INEC. The party contends that a completed act, such as the registration of a political party and its subsequent participation in electoral processes, cannot simply be unrestrained or reversed by a subsequent court order, especially when the party has invested significant resources and time based on its then-valid legal status.

This situation presents a complex interplay between judicial review, the principle of *res judicata*, and the practical realities of political party operations. While courts have the inherent power to correct their own errors or set aside judgments obtained without due process, the timing and impact of such a reversal on a political party that has already commenced electoral preparations are profound. The NDC's argument that the judge should not have reviewed his own judgment but rather directed the aggrieved party (PMP) to appeal is a strong one, aligning with established legal principles that discourage a court of coordinate jurisdiction from sitting on appeal over its own decisions.

Furthermore, the conflicting stance from the Bauchi NDC, insisting on the party's continued legal recognition, mirrors the national leadership's position and highlights internal party cohesion despite external legal challenges. This unity is crucial as the party prepares to appeal the Lokoja Federal High Court's decision. The broader context includes recent Federal High Court orders for the deregistration of other political parties (e.g., African Democratic Congress, Action Alliance, Accord Party) based on their failure to meet constitutional electoral performance thresholds. While these cases differ in their specific grounds, they collectively underscore a trend of increased judicial scrutiny over political party existence and compliance with electoral laws, often initiated by third parties like the Incorporated Trustees of the National Forum of Former Legislators.

INEC's position, awaiting the Certified True Copy of the judgment before taking further action, reflects its statutory role as a regulator bound by court orders, even as it has previously demonstrated independence by opposing attempts to deregister parties where constitutional conditions were not met. The Supreme Court's affirmation of INEC's power to deregister parties in *National Unity Party v. INEC* provides a strong precedent regarding the constitutional validity of Section 225A. However, the current NDC case is distinct, focusing on the procedural integrity of a registration order rather than performance thresholds, and will test the limits of judicial intervention in completed administrative acts and the protection of political rights.

The ongoing legal imbroglio surrounding the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) serves as a potent reminder of the precarious nature of political party existence in Nigeria, particularly in the lead-up to general elections. For legal practitioners advising political parties, this case highlights the critical importance of meticulous adherence to procedural requirements in all legal actions, especially those affecting fundamental rights like freedom of association and political participation. The NDC's immediate appeal to the Court of Appeal is a necessary step to seek clarity and potentially reverse a ruling that could otherwise disenfranchise a significant political entity and its candidates, who have already completed substantial electoral preparations under the presumption of legal recognition.

Moving forward, all stakeholders—political parties, INEC, and the judiciary—must navigate these complex issues with a view to upholding the principles of justice, due process, and democratic stability. The outcome of the NDC's appeal will not only determine the party's fate but also set important precedents regarding the finality of court orders, the scope of judicial review, and the protection of political rights in Nigeria. Practitioners should closely monitor this case and similar deregistration challenges, as they continue to shape the interpretation and application of the 1999 Constitution and the Electoral Act 2022, influencing the integrity and inclusivity of Nigeria's electoral landscape.