A Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister five political parties, a decision that could significantly alter Nigeria’s opposition landscape less than a year before the next presidential election.
The ruling, delivered by Justice Peter Lifu on Monday, directed INEC to remove the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Accord Party, Action Alliance (AA), Action Peoples Party (APP), and Zenith Labour Party (ZLP) from the register of political parties for allegedly failing to meet constitutional requirements for continued existence.
The judgment stemmed from a suit filed by the Incorporated Trustees of the National Forum of Former Legislators against INEC, the Attorney-General of the Federation, and the affected parties.
Justice Lifu held that the parties failed to satisfy the constitutional threshold required to retain their status as registered political organisations, insisting that political parties that do not meet electoral performance benchmarks should not remain on the ballot simply to increase the number of contestants.
With the ruling, the number of registered political parties could reduce from 22 to 17 if INEC proceeds with the deregistration process.
In his judgment, Justice Lifu relied on Section 225A of the Constitution, which empowers INEC to deregister political parties that fail to secure stipulated electoral benchmarks. The provision allows deregistration for parties that fail to win at least 25 per cent of votes in one state during a presidential election, one local government area in a governorship election, or at least one seat in various legislative and local government elections.
The judge stated that the constitutional provision was clear and should be interpreted according to its ordinary meaning. According to him, the proliferation of political parties without meaningful contributions to democratic development undermines the purpose of the electoral system and should be discouraged.
Justice Lifu further ordered INEC to commence the process of deregistering the affected parties and refrain from accepting official correspondence from them. He also directed the electoral commission to apply the same constitutional standard to any other party that fails to meet the minimum electoral threshold, describing the move as necessary to sanitise Nigeria’s political environment.
Before delivering judgment, the court dismissed preliminary objections raised by the defendants, who argued that proceedings should not continue because an appeal was pending and a Court of Appeal order had allegedly stayed further proceedings.
The judge held that no valid stay of proceedings had been served on the court and that there was no legal basis to halt the delivery of judgment.
The decision was swiftly condemned by key opposition figures. Former Senate President David Mark, who chairs the ADC, described the judgment as an attack on Nigeria’s democratic system. He expressed confidence that the Court of Appeal would overturn the ruling, insisting that the ADC would remain on the ballot for future elections.
The ADC also alleged that the judgment was aimed at weakening opposition politics, claiming that INEC had previously informed the court that there were no constitutional grounds warranting the party’s deregistration. The party maintained that it would pursue all available legal options to reverse the decision.
Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar’s camp and Nigeria Democratic Congress presidential candidate Peter Obi also criticised the ruling. Obi argued that such decisions could further erode public confidence in democratic institutions and called for the judgment to be reversed in the interest of fairness and political pluralism.
Accord and APP similarly rejected the verdict, accusing the court of disregarding an existing appellate court order. APP national leader Ikenga Ugochinyere described the judgment as a threat to democratic governance, while Accord’s leadership labelled it a travesty of justice.
However, former Jigawa State Governor Sule Lamido defended the ruling, arguing that court decisions delivered under constitutional authority must be respected. While acknowledging the right of aggrieved parties to appeal, he maintained that disputes should be resolved through lawful judicial processes rather than political attacks on institutions.
