Opposition politicians, party leaders and activists have criticised Monday’s Federal High Court judgement ordering the deregistration of five political parties, warning of possible implications for Nigeria’s multi-party democracy and vowing to challenge the decision through legal means.
The ruling, delivered by Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja, directed the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Accord Party, Action Alliance (AA), Action Peoples Party (APP) and Zenith Labour Party (ZLP) over what the court found to be their failure to meet constitutional requirements for continued registration.
|
|
The judgement followed a suit filed by the Incorporated Trustees of the National Forum of Former Legislators, which argued that the affected parties had failed to satisfy constitutional and electoral benchmarks required to retain their status as registered political parties.
The decision has generated widespread debate due to its potential impact on preparations for the 2027 general elections and the upcoming off-cycle governorship elections in Osun and Ekiti states.
|
|
|
|---|
Atiku camp alleges attempt to weaken opposition.
Among the earliest reactions came from Paul Ibe, media aide to former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar, the ADC’s presidential candidate.
Mr Ibe described the judgement as “judicial rascality” and alleged that it formed part of a broader effort to weaken opposition politics ahead of the next general election.
According to him, the ruling reflects what he called an attempt by President Bola Tinubu’s administration to create a de facto one-party state.
“The so-called deregistration of the African Democratic Congress, along with other parties, by Justice Peter Lifu may yet be the biggest manifestation of Tinubu’s hell-bent bid to undermine the opposition and entrench a de facto one-party state,” Mr Ibe said.
He also argued that the judgement should not have been delivered because, in his view, an appeal was already pending before the Court of Appeal.
Mr Ibe maintained that a three-member panel of the appellate court had earlier directed the trial court to stay further proceedings pending the determination of an appeal scheduled for hearing later this year.
He further accused the ruling party of attempting to manipulate the political environment ahead of the 2027 elections, warning that efforts to eliminate opposition platforms would undermine democratic competition and limit voters’ choices.
David Mark assures supporters.
The National Chairman of the ADC, former Senate President David Mark, also condemned the judgement, describing it as “an arrow fired at the heart of Nigeria’s democracy.”
Speaking after receiving a delegation of ADC candidates in Abuja, Mr Mark urged party members and supporters not to panic, insisting that the ruling would not survive appellate review.
“The judgement cannot stand. It will be set aside because it does not pass the test of law and due process,” he said.
Mr Mark similarly argued that a subsisting Court of Appeal order should have prevented further proceedings in the matter and expressed confidence that the party would obtain judicial redress.
Seeking to calm anxieties among candidates and supporters, he assured them that the ADC would remain a participant in the 2027 elections.
“The ADC will be on the ballot in 2027. I assure all our candidates, members and supporters that this temporary setback will be overcome through the judicial process,” he said.
Sowore joins criticism
The presidential candidate of the African Action Congress (AAC), Omoyele Sowore, also criticised the court’s decision, despite his party not being affected by the ruling.
Mr Sowore described the deregistration of parties that had already conducted primaries and were preparing for elections as inconsistent with democratic principles.
“I totally condemn the deregistration of political parties that have already concluded their primaries and are preparing for general elections. Such an action is undemocratic and unjustifiable in a multi-party democracy,” he wrote on social media.
His intervention broadened the reaction beyond the directly affected parties, highlighting concerns among some political actors about the implications of the ruling for Nigeria’s democratic space.
Legal battle looms
The affected parties are expected to challenge the judgement at higher courts, setting the stage for what could become a significant legal battle ahead of the 2027 elections.
At the centre of the controversy is the claim by ADC leaders that the Court of Appeal had earlier ordered a stay of proceedings in the matter, an argument likely to feature prominently in any appeal against the judgement.
The ruling has also renewed debate over the interpretation of constitutional provisions governing the registration and continued existence of political parties.
Why the judgement matters
The judgement carries significant political implications because some of the affected parties currently serve as platforms for prominent politicians preparing for the next electoral cycle.
READ ALSO: 2027: ADC names Amaechi as Atiku’s running mate
The ADC has recently positioned itself as a major opposition platform after attracting several high-profile politicians, including former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar.
Accord Party is also central to the political calculations of Osun State Governor Ademola Adeleke ahead of the state’s governorship election scheduled for August.
If the judgement is enforced, it could affect the candidacies of politicians seeking elective office under the affected parties and substantially reshape the political landscape ahead of the 2027 elections.
For now, however, leaders of the affected parties insist the legal battle is far from over and maintain that appellate courts will ultimately determine whether the parties remain on the ballot.
Background
Justice Lifu held that the affected parties no longer met the constitutional requirements for continued registration and ordered INEC to remove them from the register of political parties.
The court relied on constitutional and electoral provisions cited by the plaintiffs, who argued that the parties had failed to achieve the electoral performance thresholds required to retain their legal status.
INEC has yet to publicly indicate how it intends to proceed regarding the judgement and any subsequent appeals.
