Federal High Court Sets Aside Judgment Compelling INEC to Register NDC

The Federal High Court in Lokoja recently set aside its December 2025 judgment that had compelled the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to register the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) as a political party. The court, presided over by Justice Isah Dashen, found the earlier judgment to be "constitutionally defective" due to the non-joinder of the Peace Movement Party (PMP), which claimed ownership of the logo used by the NDC. This decision effectively nullifies all actions taken by the NDC pursuant to its registration, prompting the African Democratic Congress (ADC) to issue a warning about a potential broader assault on Nigeria's democratic space. The ruling highlights the intricate balance courts must maintain between judicial finality and the imperative to correct fundamental procedural flaws, particularly in the sensitive realm of pre-election litigation.

A recent ruling by the Federal High Court in Lokoja has sent ripples through Nigeria's political landscape, with the African Democratic Congress (ADC) expressing strong condemnation and warning of a potential threat to the nation's democratic integrity. The court, in a decision delivered by Justice Isah Dashen, set aside its own earlier judgment from December 10, 2025, which had mandated the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to register the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) as a political party. This development has far-reaching implications, effectively nullifying the NDC's registration and all subsequent political activities undertaken by the party.

The core of the court's decision rested on the principle of fair hearing and the non-joinder of a necessary party, the Peace Movement Party (PMP), which claimed proprietary rights over the logo adopted by the NDC. The ADC's swift reaction, encapsulated in its statement, underscores the heightened sensitivity surrounding judicial interventions in pre-election matters, especially as the country gears up for general elections. This article delves into the legal underpinnings of the Federal High Court's power to set aside its own judgments, examines the implications of such rulings on political parties and the electoral process, and considers the broader concerns raised about the stability of Nigeria's democratic institutions.

The Nigerian legal framework vests significant powers in the Federal High Court to adjudicate on pre-election matters. Section 84(14) of the Electoral Act 2022 specifically restricts jurisdiction for all pre-election matters to the Federal High Court, a provision designed to streamline the resolution of intra-party disputes and candidate nomination issues. However, while judgments of courts are generally considered final, Nigerian law recognizes certain exceptional circumstances under which a court may set aside its own decision. This inherent power is crucial for the administration of justice, ensuring that judgments obtained through fraud, lack of jurisdiction, or fundamental procedural defects do not stand.

The doctrine of *functus officio* generally dictates that once a court has delivered a final judgment, it loses jurisdiction over the matter and cannot revisit its substance. However, this doctrine is not absolute. Exceptions arise where a judgment is a nullity, was obtained by fraud, or where there was a denial of fair hearing, such as the non-joinder of a necessary party whose rights are directly affected by the decision. In such instances, the court is empowered to set aside the judgment *ex debito justitiae*, meaning as a matter of right and justice, rather than through an appellate process. This distinction is critical, as setting aside a judgment is about correcting a fundamental flaw in the original proceedings, not merely re-evaluating the merits of the case.

Justice Isah Dashen's ruling in Lokoja was predicated on the finding that the Federal High Court's December 10, 2025, judgment, which ordered INEC to register the NDC, was "constitutionally defective." The defect stemmed from the non-joinder of the Peace Movement Party (PMP), which claimed ownership of the logo that formed the basis of the NDC's registration. The court held that the PMP's rights were adversely affected by the earlier judgment without it having been heard, thereby violating the fundamental principle of fair hearing. Consequently, the court restored all parties to their pre-December 10, 2025, status and directed a fresh hearing with all necessary parties, including the PMP, to be joined.

This decision navigates the delicate balance between the finality of judgments and the inherent power of courts to correct fundamental errors. While the principle of *functus officio* is a cornerstone of judicial certainty, the Supreme Court of Nigeria has consistently affirmed that a court can set aside its own judgment if it is a nullity, obtained by fraud, or where there was a fundamental defect in the proceedings, such as a lack of jurisdiction or denial of fair hearing. Cases like *Skenconsult A.C.S. Pic. v. Losada (Nig.) Ltd.* and *Madukolu v. Nkemdilim* underscore that a judgment delivered without jurisdiction or in violation of fair hearing principles is a nullity and can be set aside by the same court. The argument that the non-joinder of a necessary party whose proprietary interests are directly affected renders the proceedings fundamentally defective aligns with these established legal precedents.

The practical implications of this ruling are significant. The NDC, having been registered pursuant to the earlier judgment, had reportedly undertaken extensive political activities, including membership registration, congresses, primaries, and even nominated candidates for various elective offices. The setting aside of its registration at this advanced stage of the electoral cycle introduces considerable uncertainty and disruption, raising questions about the stability of the electoral process. The ADC's warning, that "today it’s NDC, tomorrow it could be anyone," reflects a concern that such judicial interventions, even if legally sound, can be perceived as destabilizing, particularly when they occur close to general elections.

Furthermore, this case intersects with recent legislative efforts to enhance the finality of electoral disputes. The Electoral Act 2022 (and its purported 2026 amendments) aims to curb "forum shopping" and contradictory judgments by designating the Court of Appeal as the final arbiter for many pre-election matters. While the Lokoja ruling is a trial court decision, the controversy it generates highlights the ongoing tension between ensuring procedural justice and achieving definitive resolution in electoral litigation. The NDC has already indicated its intention to appeal the decision, arguing that the PMP is not a registered political party and that the ruling is legally questionable. This appeal will likely test the appellate courts' interpretation of what constitutes a "necessary party" and the threshold for setting aside judgments in the context of political party registration.

The Federal High Court in Lokoja's decision to set aside its earlier judgment recognizing the NDC underscores the judiciary's critical role in upholding fundamental legal principles, even when faced with the complexities of electoral timelines and political ramifications. While the power to set aside a judgment is an essential safeguard against injustice and nullity, its exercise in pre-election matters demands extreme caution due to the time-sensitive nature of political activities. The ADC's cautionary statement serves as a reminder of the broader public interest in judicial certainty and the need to prevent any perception of judicial processes being weaponized to shrink the democratic space.

For legal practitioners, this case highlights the paramount importance of conducting thorough due diligence in pre-election litigation, particularly in identifying and joining all necessary parties. Failure to do so, as demonstrated here, can lead to the nullification of hard-won judgments, with severe consequences for political parties and their candidates. As the NDC pursues its appeal, all stakeholders will be keenly watching how the appellate courts balance the principles of fair hearing, judicial finality, and the practical realities of Nigeria's electoral calendar. The outcome will undoubtedly shape future approaches to party registration disputes and the overall integrity of the democratic process.