The Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday dismissed a suit filed by a political association, the All Democratic Alliance (ADA), seeking registration as a political party by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
The judge, Emeka Nwite, held that the suit was incompetent for being improperly commenced.
|
|
According to the judge, the plaintiff wrongfully initiated the suit by originating summons despite containing allegations of fraud.
“Adopting this mode of suit is in itself hostile,” he said, indicating that the plaintiff should have adopted a writ of summons which offers an opportunity for the parties to call and cross-examine witnesses on contentious issues raised in the suit.
|
|
|
|---|
ADA and its promoters had filed the suit following INEC’s rejection of the ADA’s registration. INEC said the association failed to meet the necessary criteria and that their submission was merely a “letter of intent” rather than a formal application for registration.
In September last year, ADA was listed by INEC as part of 14 pre-qualified political associations shortlisted from over 170 applicants.
But by February, only two out of the eight, according to INEC, met all requirements to be registered as a political party.
According to INEC, while the Democratic Leadership Alliance (DLA) was registered after meeting all legal requirements, the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) was registered by virtue of a court order.
But the promoters of ADA, including Umar Ardo, accused INEC of double standards and fraud, alleging that the commission registered NDC while unfairly denying ADA. They wondered how a court could order NDC’s registration when it never made the list of pre-qualified associations.
INEC registration is key to sponsorship of candidates for election in Nigeria. No group can field a candidate for election into public office without being registered by INEC as a political party and the Nigerian law gives no room for independent candidacy.
Wednesday’s judgement may have ruled out ADA from the 2027 general elections. Even a successful appeal by the group is not likely to meet timeframes for the stages in the process of nominating candidates.
The suit
Mr Ardo, and other plaintiffs including Marjorie George, Anthony Ojeshina and Alhassan Nuhu, filed the suit in January.
The rest of the plaintiffs are Qoussim Opakunle and Agbo Ndidiamaka Justina.
They filed the suit against INEC, seeking an order compelling the commission to register ADA as a political party.
In March, Akin Ricketts and Aminu Ahmed were joined as co-defendants by an order of the court.
The court joined the two as defendants despite an objection from the plaintiffs, who argued that they lacked any standing to be joined as parties to the suit because, according to the plaintiffs, they were not members of ADA.
The plaintiffs argued that the party satisfied the conditions under Sections 222 to 224 of the Nigerian constitution as well as Sections 75 and 79 of the Electoral Act 2022 and the INEC Regulations and Guidelines for Political Parties.
They contended that despite meeting these requirements, INEC failed to register the association within the timeframe provided by law. It further argued that INEC’s response letter dated 18 December 2025, was issued 71 days after its application of 9 October 2025, thereby breaching the 60-day statutory window for response.
The suit sought a declaration that INEC had a duty to register it, an set aside INEC’s letter dated 18 December 2025, and an order compelling INEC to register the association.
Alternatively, they asked the court to declare that it was deemed registered by operation of law under the Electoral Act. It further sought an order compelling INEC to issue it a certificate of registration and accord it all rights and privileges of a registered political party.
Suit improperly commenced
The judge dismissed the suit after upholding the preliminary objection instituted by Messrs Ricketts and Ahmed. The two defendants maintained that the suit ought to be commenced through a writ of summons and not an originating summons, the dispute being “hostile in nature”. They said failure to filed the suit as a writ of summons therefore robbed the court of jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
The judge agreed with the plaintiffs, holding that that allegations of crime or fraud alleged by ADA could not be proved through an originating summons.
He held that such a legal challenge requires a writ of summons, which allows for full trial, including oral testimony and cross-examination of witnesses, unlike originating summons which is restricted to affidavit evidence.
“It is a well-established issue of law that the appropriate mode of commencement of a suit where there is an allegation of fraud is writ of summons,” he said.
Mr Nwite noted that the mode of commencement of a suit is fundamental, as it determines jurisdiction, and where improperly used, it robs the court of jurisdiction to hear the matter.
The judge further held that the procedure adopted deprived the second and third defendants in the case of the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses on depositions contained in the affidavit evidence, and thus “will affect their right to fair hearing,”
“I am of the view and I hold that the appropriate order is to set aside the entire proceedings. The suit is lacking in merit and thereby dismissed,” the judge said, granting the defendants’ preliminary objection.
READ ALSO: Court jails ex-minister Saleh Mamman for 75 years over power project fraud
Court rules on merit of the case
The judge also said the case did not just fail jurisdictional test but also lacked merit.
On merit, the judge said the judge held that the plaintiffs’ application failed to comply with Sections 222 to 224 of the Nigerian constitution, Section 79 of the Electoral Act 2022, and INEC rules and guidelines governing political party registration.
He noted that the details of the interim national chairman and national secretary submitted by the plaintiffs were not the same as those contained in their letter of intent.
The judge agreed with the defendants that the plaintiffs lacked legal capacity and locus standi to institute the action, as they were not the ‘pro tem’ national chairman and ‘pro tem’ national secretary of the association intended for registration.
He held that “an applicant seeking registration as a political party must cumulatively satisfy all requirements,” adding that failure to meet any requirement renders the application invalid.
The plaintiffs had argued that the pro tem national chairman and national secretary had resigned or were no longer members of ADA, but the defendants denied the claim.
The burden of proving the alleged change in leadership, the judge said, rested on the plaintiffs, who relied heavily on newspaper publications and related documents marked MM14, MM15, MM16 and MM17.
MM14, MM15 and MM16 were online publications suggesting that the second defendant had joined and taken roles in the African Democratic Congress (ADC), while MM17 and MM19 were letters and notifications relating to leadership changes within ADA.
The judge, however, held that newspaper publications “are only proof that a publication was made, not proof of the truth of their contents,” adding that they are “inherently unreliable” without independent corroboration.
He further held that alleged defection to another political party must be proved through credible records such as membership registration or dues payment, and cannot be established by media reports alone.
