Appeal Court Nullifies INEC Deregistration Order, Restores ADC, Accord Party, Three Others

Appeal Court Nullifies INEC Deregistration Order, Restores ADC, Accord Party, Three Others

Appeal Court overturns Federal High Court judgment, ruling the trial court lacked jurisdiction and acted in “judicial insubordination”

The Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal has delivered a landmark judgment setting aside the Federal High Court order that directed the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Accord Party, and three other political parties. In a unanimous decision delivered on Tuesday, a three-member panel led by Justice Abba Mohammed declared the June 15 judgment of the Federal High Court “null and void,” describing the lower court’s action as “judicial impertinence.” The appellate court restored the legal status of all five affected parties—the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Action Peoples Party (APP), Action Alliance (AA), Accord Party (AP), and Zenith Labour Party (ZLP)—clearing the way for their participation in the 2027 general elections.

The appellate court identified multiple fundamental flaws in the trial court’s handling of the case, ranging from jurisdictional errors to procedural violations. The three-member panel meticulously examined each ground of appeal and found that the lower court’s judgment was not only legally unsound but also procedurally improper, warranting its complete nullification.

First, the appellate court held that the Federal High Court wrongly assumed jurisdiction over a fundamentally incompetent suit. The case was filed by the National Forum of Former Legislators (NFFL), which the Court of Appeal ruled was a “non-juristic entity” lacking the legal capacity (locus standi) to institute the proceedings. The court further emphasized that since there was no valid suit before the Federal High Court, every consequential order made against the affected political parties, including the directive compelling INEC to withdraw their recognition, automatically collapsed. This foundational defect rendered the entire proceedings null and void from the outset.

Second, the appellate court strongly criticised the trial judge, Justice Peter Lifu, for proceeding to deliver judgment despite a subsisting order from the Court of Appeal directing a stay of proceedings. The panel noted that the trial court acted in defiance of an earlier order made on May 22, which directed it to halt proceedings pending the determination of an appeal. The court declared that what the learned trial court did amounted to judicial impertinence or what the Supreme Court called judicial insubordination. The court further observed that the Supreme Court had previously held that a judge who acts in such a manner is unfit for the bench, as the conduct amounts to judicial rascality.

READ ALSO:

• Tinubu orders security forces to hunt down killers after 30 murdered in Kaduna attack
• Kaduna 2027: Uba Sani restores Muslim-Christian ticket with Jerry Adams
• Over 40 Bandits, 8 Commanders Killed as Security Forces Repel Katsina Attack

Third, the appellate court also ruled that the trial judge failed to properly evaluate crucial evidence placed before him. Documentary evidence showing that the affected political parties had won elective seats in previous elections was ignored before the trial court reached its conclusion. The court noted that the evidence before the court clearly shows compliance with Section 225A of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as Amended), and that the judgment of the trial judge was perverse. This failure to consider available evidence undermined the credibility and validity of the lower court’s findings.

Furthermore, the Court of Appeal clarified that the compliance requirements of Section 225A of the Constitution should be interpreted disjunctively, meaning that meeting one of the conditions for continued registration is sufficient. The court also noted that the suit was premature as election cycles in some states were still ongoing when it was filed. This clarification is significant because it establishes a more flexible standard for political parties seeking to maintain their registration with INEC, potentially affecting how the electoral body evaluates party performance in future elections.

The legal battle originated from Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/2637/2026, filed by the National Forum of Former Legislators against INEC, the Attorney General of the Federation, and the five political parties. The plaintiffs had asked the Federal High Court to compel INEC to deregister the ADC, APP, AA, Accord Party, and ZLP, arguing that they failed to satisfy the constitutional conditions required for continued registration under Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution.

According to the plaintiffs, the affected parties failed to secure at least 25 per cent of votes in a state during presidential elections or win elective offices at the federal, state, or local government levels. They argued that the parties performed poorly during the 2023 general elections and subsequent by-elections and therefore no longer deserved recognition by INEC. The Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), supported the plaintiffs’ position before the trial court, arguing that INEC had a constitutional obligation to deregister political parties that no longer met the minimum constitutional requirements.

Justice Peter Lifu accepted those arguments and ordered INEC to immediately deregister the five parties, barring them from participating in the 2027 general elections. However, dissatisfied with the judgment, INEC and all the affected political parties approached the Court of Appeal seeking to have the verdict set aside, setting the stage for Tuesday’s landmark ruling.

The ruling has elicited widespread reactions from political stakeholders, legal practitioners, and civil society organizations, with many hailing it as a victory for democracy and judicial independence. The African Democratic Congress described the ruling as a “watershed moment” for Nigeria’s constitutional democracy. In a statement titled “2027: Court of Appeal Clears the Road for ADC,” the party commended the appellate justices for their courage, independence and commitment to justice. The party said the judgment reaffirmed the judiciary’s constitutional role as the final guardian of democratic governance and the rule of law.

According to the ADC, the appellate court correctly ruled that the June 15 judgment was a nullity because it was delivered in violation of an existing order of the Court of Appeal. The ADC also welcomed the court’s finding that the plaintiffs lacked the locus standi to institute the suit and that their claims were speculative and legally unsustainable. The party further stated that the latest judgment, combined with an earlier Federal High Court ruling affirming the Senator David Mark-led National Executive Committee, has finally removed every pending legal challenge to the party’s leadership and legal status.

Counsel to the Action Peoples Party (APP), Barr. Peter Abang, expressed satisfaction with the appellate court’s decision, stating that the judgment is a victory for democracy in Nigeria and that in the administration of justice, the hierarchy of Courts in Nigeria must be respected as they establish an unbroken chain of command and no court has the luxury to sit in judgment against the correctness or otherwise of orders of superior courts. The Court of Appeal allowed the separate appeals filed by the political parties and awarded monetary costs of ₦1 million against the National Forum of Former Legislators for filing the incompetent suit.

The Court of Appeal’s decision has significant implications for Nigeria’s political landscape ahead of the 2027 general elections. The ruling restores the legal status of the ADC, APP, AA, Accord Party, and ZLP, allowing them to participate fully in the upcoming elections. This means that these parties can now field candidates, mobilize supporters, and contest for elective positions across all levels of government without the legal cloud that had hung over their existence since the June 15 judgment.

The judgment reinforces the principle that INEC must follow due process and cannot deregister political parties based on suits filed by entities lacking legal standing. This protects political parties from frivolous legal challenges that could destabilize their operations and disenfranchise their supporters. The appellate court’s strong criticism of the trial judge for “judicial insubordination” serves as a warning to lower courts to respect judicial hierarchy and appellate orders, reinforcing the importance of procedural compliance in the administration of justice.

Finally, the clarification that Section 225A requirements should be interpreted disjunctively may affect how INEC evaluates political parties’ performance in future elections. This interpretation provides a more lenient standard for political parties to maintain their registration, potentially encouraging political pluralism and competition within Nigeria’s democratic space. As the country prepares for the 2027 general elections, this ruling ensures that the political landscape remains inclusive and that no party is unfairly excluded from the democratic process through procedural irregularities or jurisdictional overreach.

Appeal Court Nullifies INEC Deregistration Order, Restores ADC, Accord Party, Three Others