Federal High Court Vacates Judgment Ordering Registration of NDC as Political Party

A Federal High Court in Lokoja recently set aside its earlier judgment that had compelled the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to register the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) as a political party. The decision, delivered by Justice Isah Dashen, found that the initial judgment suffered from fundamental defects, primarily the denial of fair hearing to a necessary party, the Peace Movement Party (PMP). The PMP successfully argued that the NDC's registration was predicated on a logo it had previously submitted to INEC, making its non-inclusion in the original suit a constitutional breach. This ruling effectively nullifies the NDC's registration status, reverting the matter to its pre-judgment stage and mandating a fresh hearing with all interested parties. The case underscores the judiciary's inherent power to correct its own flawed decisions, particularly where constitutional rights like fair hearing are infringed, and highlights the stringent requirements for political party registration under Nigerian electoral law.

The landscape of political party registration in Nigeria has once again been shaped by judicial intervention, following a significant ruling by the Federal High Court in Lokoja. On June 26, 2026, the court, presided over by Justice Isah Dashen, vacated its own judgment of December 10, 2025, which had previously directed the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to register the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) as a political party. This development has far-reaching implications for the NDC and the broader electoral process, particularly as Nigeria gears up for the 2027 general elections.

The core of the court's decision to set aside its earlier verdict rested on the principle of fair hearing and the non-joinder of a necessary party. The Peace Movement Party (PMP) had successfully demonstrated that its legal interests were directly affected by the initial judgment, as the NDC's registration allegedly relied on a logo previously submitted by the PMP to INEC. The court's action serves as a critical reminder of the procedural safeguards embedded in Nigeria's judicial system, emphasizing that judgments obtained without affording all interested parties an opportunity to be heard are susceptible to being declared a nullity.

This article will delve into the legal framework governing political party registration in Nigeria, examine the grounds upon which the Federal High Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to vacate its judgment, and explore the practical implications for political associations and the Independent National Electoral Commission. It aims to provide legal practitioners with a comprehensive understanding of the principles at play and the potential ramifications for future electoral disputes.

The registration of political parties in Nigeria is a meticulously regulated process, primarily governed by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and the Electoral Act, 2022. Sections 221 to 229 of the Constitution outline the fundamental requirements for political associations seeking to attain party status, including provisions related to national spread, democratic internal structures, and the prohibition of ethnic or religious affiliations. The Electoral Act, 2022, further elaborates on these requirements, empowering INEC to register associations that comply with the stipulated conditions. A crucial aspect of these regulations, particularly highlighted in the current case, is Section 79(2) of the Electoral Act, 2022, which mandates that a political party's symbol and name must be distinctive and not identical or confusingly similar to any other registered party or association.

INEC, as the apex electoral body, is vested with the constitutional and statutory authority to monitor and regulate the formation and operation of political parties. Its guidelines for party registration are designed to ensure compliance with these legal provisions, including the careful scrutiny of proposed names, acronyms, and symbols to prevent conflicts and public confusion. Historically, the process of party registration has been a fertile ground for litigation, with associations frequently challenging INEC's decisions, and the courts often called upon to interpret the constitutional and statutory parameters.

The power of a court to set aside its own judgment is an established principle in Nigerian jurisprudence, distinct from the appellate process. This inherent jurisdiction is typically invoked where a judgment is a nullity due to a fundamental defect, such as a lack of jurisdiction, fraud, non-service of processes, or, critically, the denial of a fair hearing to a party whose rights are directly affected. The Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019, specifically Order 26 Rules 1 and 8, and Rule 56, provide the procedural framework for such applications, alongside the court's inherent powers to prevent abuse of its processes and ensure justice.

The Federal High Court's decision in Suit No. FHC/LKJ/CS/49/2025 to set aside its December 10, 2025 judgment was rooted in the fundamental constitutional right to fair hearing, as enshrined in Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). Justice Dashen's ruling explicitly stated that the earlier judgment was entered in proceedings conducted without the participation of a necessary party, the Peace Movement Party (PMP), whose legal interests were directly affected. The PMP's contention that the NDC's registration was based on a logo it had previously submitted to INEC was a crucial factual finding that underscored the necessity of its inclusion in the original suit.

The court invoked its inherent jurisdiction, exercisable *ex debito justitiae*, meaning "as a debt of justice," to correct a fundamental flaw that rendered the initial judgment a nullity. This principle allows a court to set aside its own judgment where there has been a fundamental defect, such as one that goes to the issue of jurisdiction or competence of the court, or where a party's constitutional right to fair hearing was violated. Landmark cases like *Madukolu v. Nkemdilim* (1962) 1 ALL NLR 187 and *Skenconsult A.C.S. Pic. v. Losada (Nig.) Ltd.* (1995) 7 NWLR (Pt. 405) 206 affirm that a judgment obtained in proceedings with such fundamental defects is a nullity and can be set aside by the same court.

The implication of the court's finding of "procedural and statutory defects" and the suppression of "material facts" in the earlier proceedings is significant. It suggests that the initial order for NDC's registration might have been obtained under circumstances that did not fully present the facts or adhere to all legal requirements, particularly concerning the distinctiveness of party symbols as mandated by Section 79(2) of the Electoral Act, 2022. The decision to revert the parties to their pre-December 2025 judgment status and order a fresh hearing ensures that all arguments, including those from the PMP, are properly considered before a substantive determination is made.

While the NDC's National Leader, Seriake Dickson, has asserted that the party has not been deregistered and its nominations remain valid, the court's order to set aside the judgment effectively nullifies the legal basis for its registration. This means that any actions taken by INEC in compliance with the now-vacated judgment are also reversed. The matter is now poised for a comprehensive re-evaluation, with the PMP, NDC, and INEC as parties, ensuring a more robust and constitutionally compliant determination of the NDC's registration status.

The Federal High Court in Lokoja's decision to vacate its earlier judgment compelling INEC to register the NDC serves as a potent reminder of the judiciary's role in upholding constitutional principles, particularly the right to fair hearing. For legal practitioners, this case underscores the critical importance of identifying and joining all necessary parties in litigation, especially in matters with broad public interest implications such as political party registration. Failure to do so can lead to a judgment being declared a nullity, regardless of its initial pronouncement, thereby prolonging disputes and increasing legal costs.

Looking ahead, the NDC now faces the challenge of re-establishing its registration legitimacy through a fresh hearing, with the added complexity of addressing the PMP's claims regarding its logo. This process will undoubtedly test the party's organizational resilience and legal strategy. For INEC, the ruling reinforces the need for meticulous adherence to its guidelines and the Electoral Act, 2022, in processing party registrations, ensuring that all statutory requirements, including the distinctiveness of party symbols, are rigorously met. The political landscape will keenly watch the outcome of the fresh hearing, as it will not only determine the fate of the NDC but also further clarify the judicial interpretation of political party registration laws in Nigeria.