The Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister the African Democratic Congress (ADC) and four other political parties over alleged failure to meet constitutional requirements for continued registration.
The judge, Peter Lifu, made the order in a judgment on Monday. He noted that the affected parties breached Section 225 of the Nigerian Constitution.
|
|
The section gives INEC the power to deregister political parties that failed to win any elective position or 25 per cent of the votes in the previous round of elections at the federal, state and local government levels
The judgement, if immediately enforced, is bound to lead to a deluge of disqualifications of candidates running for elective offices in the 2027 general elections and the upcoming off-cycle governorship elections slated for June and August this year in Ekiti and Osun states.
|
|
|
|---|
PREMIUM TIMES reported that the suit was filed by the National Forum of Former Legislators against INEC, the Attorney-General of the Federation and the affected opposition parties.
Other parties listed in the suit and affected by the court’s deregistration order are Accord, Action Alliance (AA), Action Peoples Party (APP) and Zenith Labour Party (ZLP).
The plaintiffs argued that the parties no longer met the constitutional threshold for continued existence as registered political parties.
They relied on Section 225(a) of the Constitution and provisions of the Electoral Act, insisting the parties failed to win elective seats or meet minimum requirements in elections.
They asked the court to hold that INEC has a constitutional duty to deregister political parties that fail to meet the legal conditions.
The plaintiffs also sought an order compelling INEC to remove the parties from its register and restrain them from participating in future elections.
The Attorney-General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi, who was joined as a defendant in the suit, threw the weight of his office behind the suit and the prayers sought.
The judgement will have far-reaching implications for the upcoming general elections, which are about seven to eight months away, and the off-cycle governorship elections in Ekiti and Osun states.
If the judgment promptly goes into force, it will mean an automatic disqualification for the candidates of the affected political parties and will dramatically reshape the political landscape ahead of the elections in which the candidates of the parties are major contenders.
Among notable candidates in the firing line of the verdict are Atiku Abubakar, who recently emerged as the presidential candidate of the ADC, and Osun State Governor Ademola Adeleke, who is seeking a second term in office on the platform of Accord in the governorship election slated for August.
‘They’re not eligible to participate in 2027 elections, other polls’
After reviewing the issues raised by parties to the suit, the judge said in his judgement, “The plaintiff’s case succeeds in part as follows.”
Judge Lifu consequently ordered the parties’ deregistration and held that they were not eligible to participate in the 2027 general elections or any other election scheduled by INEC.
He ordered INEC to take immediate steps to remove the affected parties from the register of political parties.
The judge directed INEC to activate all necessary mechanisms to carry out the deregistration.
He also restrained the commission from accepting any correspondence from the affected political parties.
Mr Lifu further directed INEC to exercise its constitutional and statutory powers to deregister any political party that fails to meet the minimum legal threshold.
He said the measure was necessary to sanitise the political space.
INEC, parties sought dismissal of suit
The plaintiff filed suit invoking the provisions of section 225(a) of the Nigerian constitution, section 75(4) of the Electoral Act, 2022, and the relevant provisions of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019.
Among its prayers, the plaintiff asked the court to stop INEC from receiving or recognising correspondence from the five political parties. It argued that the parties failed to win any of the elective seats required under the Constitution.
It also sought orders preventing INEC from engaging with or recognising the parties unless they met constitutional and statutory requirements. The plaintiff’s lawyers, led by Yakubu Ruba, SAN, urged the court to deregister the five political parties.
INEC, however, opposed the suit. The electoral body described the plaintiff as a busybody lacking lacked legal standing to institute the action and urged the court to dismiss it as unmeritorious.
The Attorney General of the Federation, Mr Fagbemi, who is also a defendant in the suit, supported the call for the deregistration of the affected parties. Joshua Olatoke, a professor of law and SAN, represented him and urged the court during the hearing to order the deregistration of the parties.
However, Musibau Adetunmbi and Shuaib Aruwa, SANs, argued on behalf of the Accord and the ADC, respectively. They urged the court to dismiss the suit, describing it as frivolous, baseless and unwarranted.
At the hearing on 11 May, Mr Adetunmbi argued that the trial court should not proceed with the case because related issues were already before the Court of Appeal.
Relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court, he argued that a lower court could not continue hearing issues already pending before a higher court.
Objections dismissed
Ruling on the preliminary objections filed by INEC and the five political parties on Monday, Judge Lifu held that the argument that the Court of Appeal had stayed proceedings in the matter was no longer sustainable, especially as parties had already adopted their final written addresses and the case adjourned for judgement.
The judge maintained that the provisions of Section 225 (a) of the Nigerian onstitution are unambiguous.
“The words used in Section 225(a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) are plain, direct, express and simple and should be given their literal meaning,” he held.
“Any deviation therefrom will not meet the goal and the mischief the lawmakers intended to cure.
“Proliferation of political parties without any purposeful and intentional design to promote democratic ideals should be discouraged.
“Any tendency to pollute the political environment by exploiting uninformed members of the electorate must be frowned upon by the court.”
Addressing the argument that the Court of Appeal had stayed the proceedings, the judge stressed that trial courts must respect decisions and orders of appellate courts in line with the constitutional hierarchy of courts.
However, he noted that no order staying proceedings had been served on the court before the parties adopted their final written addresses.
“It must also be remembered that, at the time of adoption of final written addresses by all learned counsel in this suit, there was no order for stay of proceedings from any court served on this court, nor was any such subsisting order of an appellate court brought to its attention,” he stated.
According to him, the only material before the court was evidence of a pending interlocutory appeal.
He recalled that an application for a stay of proceedings filed before the trial court had already been heard and dismissed.
The judge further observed that the law does not recognise the concept of arresting a judgment after a case has been fixed for delivery.
“The position of the law is that the rules of court do not provide for the arrest of judgment as the defendants in this case are attempting to do,” he held.
Citing earlier decisions, Judge Lifu noted that the Supreme Court had consistently held that litigants cannot prevent a court from delivering its judgment under any guise.
He acknowledged that an exception exists where the judicial process is about to be abused, in which case a court has a duty to intervene.
“In the instant case, there is no express, direct and specific order of the appellate court staying the judgement of this court capable of creating such an exception,” he added.
The judge also noted that all the defendants participated fully in the proceedings, including hearings that resulted in three interlocutory rulings.
He observed that they subsequently adopted their objections to the court’s jurisdiction as well as their arguments on the substantive suit.
“Fair hearing was duly granted to all parties, and the judgment of the court was accordingly fixed in the presence of all parties or their counsel,” he stated.
He added that any party seeking to suspend the effect of an order fixing a matter for judgment must obtain a specific order staying that decision.
Judge Lifu consequently held that there was no legal obstacle preventing the court from delivering its judgment.
“Based on my conclusion and reasoning aforesaid, the multiple preliminary objections of the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th defendants, as differently constituted, all fail and are accordingly dismissed,” the judge ruled.
Appeal Court order was ignored
On Monday, before delivering judgement, the respondents drew the attention of the judge, Mr Lifu, to a Court of Appeal order directing a halt to proceedings in the suit seeking deregistration of political parties.
The appellate court, in a unanimous decision delivered by a three-member panel comprising judges Mohammed Danjuma, Adebukola Banjoko and Oyejoju Oyewumi, issued the order on 22 May.
It directed the trial court to stay proceedings pending the determination of an interlocutory appeal filed by the Accord Party.
The appeal followed an earlier ruling in which Mr Lifu refused an application by Osun State Governor Ademola Adeleke to join the suit as a defendant.
READ ALSO: ADC declines to confirm reports of Atiku running mate pick
The governor had sought joinder on the grounds that he had a political interest in the Accord, which he intended to use as his platform for the 15 August governorship election in Osun State.
On 27 April, the dismissed the joinder application.
Dissatisfied with that ruling, the governor, through his lawyer, Mr Adetunmbi, approached the Court of Appeal to challenge it.
After hearing arguments from parties, the appellate court ordered that the trial court should suspend further proceedings until the appeal is determined. It also fixed 27 October for the hearing of the interlocutory appeal.
Certified true copies of the enrolment order were later served on the trial court alongside the notice of appeal.
However, the documents were not acted upon on Monday, following objections by the plaintiffs that they were aimed at halting the delivery of judgement.
