Federal High Court Rejects NDC's Registration Bid

Abstract
A recent Federal High Court ruling in Lokoja has set aside its earlier judgment that compelled the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to register the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC), effectively deregistering the party. This decision has ignited widespread condemnation from prominent political figures and legal experts, including former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Femi Falana. Critics allege the ruling is a coordinated attempt to stifle opposition and undermine Nigeria's multi-party democracy, particularly ahead of the 2027 general elections. INEC has indicated it is awaiting the Certified True Copy (CTC) of the judgment, while the NDC has vowed to appeal the decision, asserting its continued legal existence and the validity of its candidates' nominations. The controversy highlights ongoing tensions regarding judicial intervention in electoral matters and the powers of INEC to regulate political parties under the Nigerian Constitution and Electoral Act.
Introduction
Nigeria's political landscape has been rocked by a recent Federal High Court ruling that reversed an earlier order for the registration of the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC), effectively leading to its deregistration. The judgment, delivered by Justice Isah Dashen in Lokoja, has sparked a wave of condemnations from key political actors and legal luminaries, who view it as a troubling development for the nation's multi-party democracy. The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the electoral umpire, has stated that it is awaiting the Certified True Copy (CTC) of the judgment before taking further action, while the affected party, NDC, has swiftly announced its intention to appeal the decision.
This judicial pronouncement comes at a critical juncture, with the 2027 general elections on the horizon, raising significant concerns about the fairness and integrity of the electoral process. The reactions from figures like former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, the African Democratic Congress (ADC), and human rights lawyer Femi Falana (SAN) underscore the perceived threat to political pluralism and the rule of law. This article delves into the legal framework governing political party registration and deregistration in Nigeria, analyzes the implications of the Lokoja ruling, and examines the broader context of judicial intervention in electoral matters, offering insights for legal practitioners navigating this evolving terrain.
Background
The regulation of political parties in Nigeria is primarily governed by the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and the Electoral Act 2022. Section 225A of the Constitution grants INEC the power to deregister political parties that fail to meet specific electoral performance thresholds. These thresholds include the 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, or at least one ward in a chairmanship election, or 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, leading to numerous legal battles. The Supreme Court has, on several occasions, affirmed INEC's constitutional powers to deregister parties that do not meet the stipulated criteria. For instance, in 2020, INEC deregistered 74 political parties for failing to meet these requirements, a decision that was largely upheld by the courts. The Electoral Act 2022 further streamlines the electoral process, expanding INEC's powers and setting clear timelines for various electoral activities, including party registration and candidate nomination. However, the recent ruling concerning the NDC introduces a new dimension to this established legal framework, particularly regarding the circumstances under which a court can revisit and set aside its own final judgment.
Analysis
The Federal High Court's decision to set aside its earlier judgment, which had mandated INEC to register the NDC, hinges on a procedural ground: the failure to join a necessary party, the Peace Movement Party (PMP), which claimed ownership of the logo used by the NDC. This raises critical questions about the doctrine of *functus officio*, a fundamental legal principle that dictates that once a court has delivered a final judgment or made a final order, it becomes functus officio and cannot revisit or reverse its own determination, save for specific, limited exceptions such as clerical errors or to give effect to its judgment.
Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Femi Falana, has strongly argued that the court, having delivered a final judgment in December 2025, was *functus officio* and therefore lacked the jurisdiction to set aside its own decision. He contends that any party dissatisfied with the judgment should have pursued an appeal to a higher court, rather than seeking a reversal from the same judge. Furthermore, Falana emphasized that all actions taken by the NDC pursuant to the initial judgment, including the conduct of primary elections and nomination of candidates for the 2027 general elections, remain legally valid and cannot be retrospectively invalidated by the subsequent ruling.
The condemnations from political figures like Atiku Abubakar and the ADC highlight a broader concern about the judiciary's role in shaping the political landscape. They perceive the ruling as part of a "coordinated attempt to weaken opposition parties" and a "desperation to impose a one-party system." This sentiment is exacerbated by other recent judicial interventions, such as the Federal High Court ruling by Justice Peter Lifu, which ordered the deregistration of five other political parties (ADC, Accord, Action Alliance, Action Peoples Party, and Zenith Labour Party) despite a subsisting stay of execution order from the Court of Appeal. Such conflicting judicial pronouncements create uncertainty and can be seen as undermining the stability and predictability of the electoral process.
The NDC's immediate appeal to the Court of Appeal is a crucial next step, as it seeks to challenge both the jurisdiction and propriety of the Lokoja court's order. The outcome of this appeal will be pivotal in clarifying the legal status of the NDC and potentially setting precedents for how *functus officio* is applied in cases involving electoral disputes and party registration. Meanwhile, INEC's decision to await the CTC before acting is a standard procedural step, but the political implications of the delay and the ongoing legal uncertainty are significant for all stakeholders, particularly candidates who have already invested in the electoral cycle.
Conclusion
The Federal High Court's ruling on the NDC deregistration has injected considerable uncertainty into Nigeria's pre-election environment, drawing sharp criticism and raising fundamental questions about judicial powers and the sanctity of judgments. The strong reactions from political leaders and legal experts underscore the perceived fragility of multi-party democracy when judicial decisions appear to contradict established legal principles or are seen as politically motivated. The doctrine of *functus officio* is a cornerstone of judicial finality, and its application in this context will be a key point of contention in the appellate process.
For legal practitioners, this development signals a heightened need for vigilance in electoral litigation. Advising political parties and candidates requires careful consideration of not only the substantive electoral laws but also the procedural nuances of judicial review and the potential for conflicting judgments. The NDC's appeal to the Court of Appeal will be a landmark case, potentially clarifying the boundaries of judicial authority in revisiting its own decisions and the implications for party registration and candidate eligibility. All eyes will be on the appellate courts to provide clarity and reinforce the principles of judicial integrity and democratic pluralism in Nigeria.
Citations
- 1.1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended)
- 2.Electoral Act 2022
- 3.Suit No. FHC/LKJ/CS/49/2025 (Federal High Court, Lokoja)
- 4.National Unity Party v. Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) (Supreme Court, 2021)
How does this affect your business?
Get an AI analysis of this article grounded in your jurisdictions, practice areas, and any policy documents you've uploaded to Wansom.
