Atiku, Udeze, Lawyers Hail A/Court Ruling Halting Deregistration Of ADC, Others ¡CONTINUED FROM P1

0

ABUJA – Former vice president and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Atiku Abubakar; Chief Kenneth Udeze, the National Chairman of Action Alliance (AA), and lawyers have described the Court of Appeal’s decision setting aside the Federal High Court judgment that ordered the deregistration of five political parties as a landmark affirmation of constitutionalism, judicial discipline and the rule of law ahead of the 2027 general elections.

The five parties are African Democratic Party (ADC), Action Peoples Party (APP), Action Alliance (AA), Accord Party (AP), and the Zenith Labour Party (ZLP).

Atiku Abubakar, in a statement on Tuesday in Abuja by his Media Office, congratulated the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal for their courage, fidelity to the constitution and unwavering commitment to justice, adding that their judgment is a reassuring affirmation that the judiciary remains the last hope of the common man and the ultimate guardian of constitutional democracy.

“At a time when many Nigerians are anxious about the future of democratic governance, the court has demonstrated that justice, when courageously dispensed, remains the strongest defence against arbitrariness and political expediency.

“With the Court of Appeal’s judgment affirming the legal status of the ADC, alongside the judgment of Hon. Justice Liman of the Federal High Court, Abuja Division, which upheld the election of the Senator David Mark-led National Executive Committee of the party, the leading opposition party has now cleared all legal obstacles to its participation in the 2027 general election.

“There is no longer any pending suit challenging the leadership or legal status of the ADC. The party is therefore fully positioned to present its candidates and contest the 2027 general election.

“The Court of Appeal rightly held that the judgment delivered on June 15 by Justice Peter Lifu was a nullity, having been rendered in disobedience to a subsisting order of the Court of Appeal.

The appellate court further held that the respondents lacked the requisite locus standi to institute the action, describing their claims as speculative and legally unsustainable.”

Chief Kenneth Udeze, the Action Alliance National Chairman, in a statement immediately after the ruling on Tuesday, said it has effectively put to rest all attempts to undermine the legitimacy of the party under his executive and cleared the way for it to proceed with all activities and programmes leading to the 2027 general elections.

Udeze stressed that with the decision, the court has once again affirmed that Action Alliance remains a fully registered and constitutionally recognised political party in Nigeria.

He also stated that his leadership is the only valid and subsisting leadership of the party. Udeze said: “We use this opportunity to thank God Almighty for granting us justice.

“We also commend and appreciate our erudite constitutional lawyers, Barr. Madeh Yakubu, Esq and Barr. Peters Ugwuoke, Esq, for their diligence, professionalism and commitment to the rule of law.

“To our teeming members, candidates who emerged from our primaries across the country, and Nigerians who believe in a new political order, we say: the coast is clear.” Similarly, legal experts said the appellate court’s ruling not only reaffirmed the doctrine of locus standi but also sent a clear warning that courts cannot be used by “busybodies or meddlesome interlopers” to pursue political objectives through litigation.

Speaking on the judgment, a senior Advocate, Dr. Monday Ubani, said the decision reinforced the constitutional limits of judicial intervention in electoral matters by making it clear that only persons with a sufficient legal interest could invoke the jurisdiction of the courts on issues relating to the registration or deregistration of political parties.

According to him, permitting persons without such legal standing to institute actions would expose Nigeria’s electoral process to unnecessary judicial interference and create uncertainty in the political system.

Ubani noted that the Court of Appeal had also reaffirmed the restrictive principle on locus standi established in Senator Abraham Adesanya vs. President of Nigeria, stressing that there was no place in law for “busybodies or meddlesome interlopers” to challenge matters in which they had no direct legal interest.

He said the judgment would provide certainty for political parties preparing for the 2027 general elections by preventing attempts to destabilise the electoral process through collateral litigation aimed at excluding political parties from participating in elections.

“The judgment promotes stability in Nigeria’s electoral jurisprudence by emphasising jurisdictional discipline, safeguarding the integrity of the political party system and ensuring that the democratic space remains open to all duly registered political parties,” he said.

Also reacting, legal practitioner and Notary Public, Olajide Abiodun Akinola, said the significance of the decision extended beyond the continued registration of the affected political parties.

According to him, the appeal was decided not on whether the parties met the constitutional requirements for deregistration but because the plaintiff lacked the requisite legal standing, thereby depriving the Federal High Court of jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

He described as equally significant the appellate court’s condemnation of the trial court for proceeding with the matter despite a subsisting order of the Court of Appeal staying further proceedings.

Akinola said the judgment reaffirmed the settled legal principle that any court acting in defiance of an order of a superior court acts without legal authority and that such proceedings amount to a nullity regardless of the apparent merit of the decision.

He, however, clarified that the judgment should not be interpreted as restricting the constitutional powers of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) under Section 225A of the constitution to deregister political parties where the prescribed conditions exist.

“The court merely rejected an attempt by a party without sufficient legal interest to compel the exercise of that constitutional power through the judicial process,” he said.

He added that beyond restoring the legal status of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Accord Party, Action Peoples Party (APP), Action Alliance (AA) and Zenith Labour Party (ZLP), the judgment reaffirmed the constitutional values of judicial discipline, respect for the hierarchy of courts and the central role of jurisdiction in the administration of justice.

A/Court Voids Order For Deregistration Of ADC, Four Others Parties

Recall that the Court of Appeal in Abuja has vacated the judgment that ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister the African Democratic Congress (ADC) and four other political parties accused of failing to meet constitutional requirements.

Aside from the ADC, the other parties whose registration the appellate court restored are the Action Peoples Party (APP), Action Alliance (AA), Accord Party (AP), and the Zenith Labour Party (ZLP).

The appellate court, in a unanimous decision by a three-member panel of Justices, held that the order which the Federal High Court issued to the electoral body on June 15, 2026 amounted to a nullity.

It held that the High Court wrongly assumed jurisdiction and made the order on an incompetent suit that was filed by a non-juristic entity.

According to the appellate court, there was no valid suit that could have warranted the consequential order that directed INEC to derecognise the political parties.

It noted that the trial court failed to properly evaluate evidence placed before it, stressing that proof that the parties won various seats in previous elections was ignored. It also held that the High Court acted in defiance of an order that directed it to stay proceedings in the case.

It held that the High Court ought to have dismissed the substantive case for want of jurisdiction and merit. Consequently, the appellate court, in its lead judgment delivered by Justice Abba Mohammed, held that all the affected political parties remained duly registered.

It allowed separate appeals filed by the political parties and awarded monetary costs against the National Forum of Former Legislators (NFFL), which had filed the case against them.

Daily Independent recalls that the appellate court had, on June 16, 2026 ordered a stay of execution of the High Court judgment, even as it slammed the trial judge for disregarding the judicial hierarchy.

The panel berated Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja for disobeying an order it had made on May 22, directing him to stay proceedings in the case pending the outcome of an appeal by the parties. It noted that even though the trial judge’s attention had been drawn to the order for a stay of proceedings, he intentionally flouted it and went ahead to deliver judgment.

It held that Justice Lifu’s action was “a form of judicial impertinence,” stressing 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.”

Daily Independent also recalls that the High Court had directed INEC to deregister the five political parties, which it said had failed to meet the constitutional requirements needed to warrant their continued existence and participation in future elections.

It also barred INEC from according further recognition to the parties, accepting nominations of candidates from the affected parties, or giving effect to their activities for purposes of participating in the 2027 general elections.

Justice Lifu ordered the defendants to stop parading themselves as registered political parties in the country, saying he found merit in the suit filed by the NFFL.

The NFFL had, in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2637/2026, asked the court to determine whether INEC has a constitutional obligation to remove political parties that failed to meet the electoral performance thresholds set out in Section 225A of the 1999 constitution (as amended), as reinforced by the Electoral Act 2022 and INEC’s regulations.

It was the plaintiff’s position that the five political parties listed as defendants had persistently failed to meet the constitutional benchmarks required to retain their registration.

The former legislators stressed that the requirements include winning at least 25 percent of the votes in a state during a presidential election, or securing at least one elective seat at the national, state, or local government level.

They told the court that the ADC and the four other parties had performed poorly in both the 2023 general elections and the by-elections conducted by INEC, thereby failing to win seats across key tiers of government.

The litigants insisted that the continued existence of the ADC and the other defendants as recognised political parties is unlawful and undermines the integrity of the country’s electoral system.

The Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Prince Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), who is also a defendant in the matter, threw his weight behind the plaintiff.

In processes filed before the court, the AGF argued that the continued existence of the said political parties violates extant provisions of the 1999 constitution (as amended) and ultimately undermines the nation’s electoral integrity.

The AGF argued that unless the court intervened, INEC would continue to act in breach of its constitutional duty by retaining parties that had failed to meet the minimum requirements prescribed by law. Not satisfied with the trial court’s verdict, all the defendants, including INEC, urged the appellate court to set aside the judgment of the Federal High Court.