INEC’s Legal Battle Over Deregistration Sparks Debate

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has moved to the Court of Appeal in Abuja, seeking a stay of execution on the judgment that ordered the deregistration of five political parties, including the African Democratic Congress (ADC).

The case has quickly evolved beyond a dispute over party registration. It now raises broader questions about judicial hierarchy, respect for appellate authority, and the credibility of Nigeria’s electoral process.

INEC’s Position
INEC told the appellate court it was blindsided by the ruling of Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court, who delivered judgment despite an earlier order halting him. The Commission’s lawyers argued they only learned of the decision through media reports, not official notification.

By supporting the appeal lodged by the affected parties, INEC signaled its concern that the judgment could disrupt upcoming by-elections and undermine electoral stability. The Commission stressed that it does not oppose the request to suspend the ruling until the appeal is determined.

ADC’s Pushback
Counsel for the ADC, Shuaibu Aruwa (SAN), accused Justice Lifu of defying the appellate court’s authority. He revealed that the party was informed of the judgment via WhatsApp, a method he described as irregular and disrespectful to judicial procedure.

ALSO READ

Alex Ekubo: Daddy Freeze Mocks Nathaniel Bassey Over ‘Failure’ To Perform Miracle

Omo-Agege Endorses Obi For 2027, Maintains Support For Tinubu’s Economic Policies

Aruwa urged the Court of Appeal to sanction the trial judge, warning that such defiance invites anarchy. He argued that the judiciary must protect its integrity by ensuring lower courts comply with superior orders.

Wider Implications
The controversy comes at a sensitive time. INEC is preparing by-elections across six states, and the deregistration order could complicate candidate nominations and voter expectations. Political analysts warn that uncertainty over party status risks confusing the electorate and weakening confidence in democratic institutions.

The case also highlights the constitutional thresholds for party survival. Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution requires parties to win at least 25 percent of votes in a state during a presidential election or secure an elective seat at any level of government. The ADC and four others—Action Peoples Party (APP), Action Alliance (AA), Accord Party (AP), and Zenith Labour Party (ZLP)—were found to have failed these benchmarks.

Former Legislators’ Role
The suit was filed by the National Forum of Former Legislators (NFFL), who argued that the continued existence of underperforming parties undermines Nigeria’s electoral system. They pointed to poor showings in the 2023 general elections and subsequent by-elections as evidence of irrelevance.

Their position reflects a growing debate about whether Nigeria’s political landscape should be streamlined to strengthen viable parties or remain open to smaller groups that represent diverse interests.

Judicial Integrity at Stake
Beyond party politics, the case underscores the importance of judicial discipline. The Court of Appeal now faces pressure to assert its authority and prevent lower courts from disregarding its orders. Legal experts note that failure to act decisively could erode public trust in the judiciary.

As proceedings continue, the spotlight remains on whether the appellate court will suspend the judgment and address the conduct of the trial judge. The outcome will shape not only the fate of the five parties but also the perception of Nigeria’s judicial and electoral institutions.