Justice Isah Dashen Nullifies NDC's Political Party Status

The Federal High Court sitting in Lokoja, Kogi State, 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. This significant development, delivered by Justice Isah Dashen on June 26, 2026, effectively nullifies the NDC's registration and all actions taken pursuant to the December 10, 2025, order. The court's decision was predicated on an application by the Peace Movement Party (PMP), which argued that its rights were adversely affected as it was not joined in the initial suit, despite claiming ownership of the logo used by the NDC. The ruling underscores the critical importance of joining all necessary parties in litigation, particularly in matters affecting fundamental rights and the electoral process, and has prompted strong reactions from the NDC and its presidential candidate, Peter Obi, who have vowed to appeal the decision.

Nigeria's political landscape has been stirred by a recent judicial pronouncement from the Federal High Court in Lokoja, Kogi State, which on June 26, 2026, vacated its earlier order for the registration of the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) as a political party. This ruling, delivered by Justice Isah Dashen, effectively reverses the NDC's status, which had been granted following a December 10, 2025, judgment compelling the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to register the party. The decision has far-reaching implications for electoral integrity, party formation, and the principle of fair hearing in Nigerian jurisprudence.

The core of the court's reasoning centered on the non-joinder of a necessary party, the Peace Movement Party (PMP), whose rights were found to have been adversely affected by the initial registration order. The PMP claimed ownership of the logo that formed the basis of the NDC's registration, a material fact not adequately addressed in the earlier proceedings. This article delves into the legal intricacies of the judgment, examining its basis in constitutional and electoral law, the reactions from affected parties, and the broader implications for political party registration and judicial review in Nigeria.

The formation and registration of political parties in Nigeria are governed primarily by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), particularly Sections 221 to 229, and the Electoral Act, 2022. These legal frameworks empower INEC to regulate political associations, ensuring they meet specific criteria before being officially recognised as political parties. The process typically involves an application to INEC, submission of a constitution and manifesto, and compliance with various administrative and statutory requirements.

Prior to the recent ruling, the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) had secured a judgment from the Federal High Court in Lokoja on December 10, 2025, in Suit No. FHC/LKJ/CS/49/2025 (Takori Mohammed Sanni & Ors v. INEC), which mandated INEC to register it as a political party. This initial order allowed the NDC to commence political activities, including membership drives and preparations for future elections. However, the subsequent application by the Peace Movement Party (PMP) introduced a new dimension, alleging that the NDC's registration was based on a logo to which the PMP had prior claim, and that the PMP was not afforded an opportunity to be heard in the original suit.

The principle of fair hearing, enshrined in Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution, is a cornerstone of Nigerian jurisprudence, dictating that all parties whose rights and obligations may be affected by a judicial decision must be given an opportunity to present their case. The non-joinder of a necessary party, especially one with a direct interest in the subject matter, can render a judgment liable to be set aside, as it constitutes a fundamental defect in the proceedings. This doctrine formed the bedrock of the Federal High Court's decision to revisit and ultimately nullify its earlier registration order.

Justice Isah Dashen, in setting aside the December 10, 2025, judgment, meticulously applied the principles of natural justice and fair hearing. The court found that the initial judgment, which directed INEC to register the NDC, was "constitutionally defective" because the Peace Movement Party (PMP) was not joined as a party, despite its legitimate claim to the logo used by the NDC. This omission, the court held, adversely affected the PMP's rights, thereby vitiating the entire proceedings that led to the NDC's registration.

The ruling effectively restores the *status quo ante bellum*, meaning all parties revert to their positions before the December 10, 2025, judgment. This implies that the NDC's recognition and certificate of registration, issued by INEC in compliance with the earlier order, are now reversed. The court further directed that the substantive suit be heard afresh, with INEC, the PMP, and the NDC all joined as necessary parties to ensure a complete and effectual determination of the issues in dispute.

This judicial intervention highlights the judiciary's role in safeguarding the integrity of the electoral process and ensuring adherence to due process. While the Electoral Act, 2022, and the Constitution provide guidelines for political party registration, the courts serve as a crucial arbiter in disputes arising from these processes. The decision reinforces the imperative for litigants to identify and join all parties with a direct and substantial interest in a matter, particularly when seeking orders that could impact third-party rights. Failure to do so, as demonstrated in this case, can lead to the nullification of even seemingly conclusive judgments.

The NDC, through its presidential candidate Peter Obi, has expressed strong disapproval of the ruling, describing it as a "serious setback for Nigerian democracy" and alleging that it undermines public confidence in democratic institutions. The party has announced its intention to appeal the judgment, arguing that the Federal High Court lacked the jurisdiction to reverse its own final judgment and that the ruling is legally flawed. This indicates a potential protracted legal battle, with the matter likely to proceed to the Court of Appeal, where the arguments regarding jurisdiction and the propriety of setting aside a final judgment will be thoroughly tested.

Comparatively, the Nigerian legal system has seen instances where courts have intervened in party registration and deregistration matters. Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, grants INEC powers to deregister political parties under specific conditions, often related to electoral performance. However, judicial review of such decisions, or indeed of initial registration orders, remains a vital check on the powers of the electoral body and ensures that constitutional provisions and principles of fair hearing are upheld. This case underscores the dynamic interplay between INEC's administrative functions, constitutional provisions, and the judiciary's oversight role in shaping Nigeria's multi-party democracy.

The Federal High Court's decision to set aside its earlier judgment registering the Nigeria Democratic Congress serves as a potent reminder to legal practitioners of the fundamental importance of identifying and joining all necessary parties in litigation. The principle of fair hearing is not merely a procedural formality but a constitutional imperative, and its breach can lead to the nullification of even seemingly settled matters. For attorneys advising political associations seeking registration, meticulous due diligence regarding potential conflicts, particularly concerning party symbols and names, and comprehensive party identification for litigation purposes, is paramount.

Practitioners should closely monitor the NDC's appeal, as the appellate court's pronouncements on the Federal High Court's jurisdiction to set aside its own final judgment, and the interpretation of "necessary party" in the context of political party registration, will provide crucial guidance. The ongoing legal contest underscores the often contentious nature of political party formation and regulation in Nigeria, and the judiciary's continuing role as a critical arbiter in safeguarding democratic processes. The outcome of this appeal will undoubtedly shape future strategies for political party registration and electoral litigation, influencing the stability and inclusivity of Nigeria's democratic space.