Ahmod B. Ariyibi, Esq.**

Introduction

On 15 June 2026, the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja delivered a judgment that has generated considerable constitutional, electoral, and political debate in Nigeria, owing to the Court’s order directing the deregistration of five political parties: The African Democratic Congress (ADC), Accord Party (A), Action Alliance (AA), Action Peoples Party (APP), and Zenith Labour Party (ZLP). The judgment was delivered by Honourable Justice Peter Lifu in The Incorporated Trustees of the National Forum of Former Legislators v. INEC & 6 Ors [1].

The case arose from a challenge to the continued registration of certain political parties alleged to have failed to satisfy the constitutional requirements for retaining their status as registered political parties under the Constitution [2] and the Court was called upon to determine, among other issues, whether the said political parties had complied with the constitutional conditions necessary for their continued existence as registered political parties and whether the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) had failed in its constitutional obligation to deregister political parties that no longer satisfy those requirements.

The outcome of the decision has attracted several attentions, not only because of its implications to the affected political parties but also because it raises important questions regarding the interpretation of section 225A of the Constitution, the constitutional powers of INEC, the role of the courts in electoral administration, and the broader relationship between constitutional accountability and democratic pluralism. The case is therefore likely to remain a significant authority in discussions relating to political party regulation, electoral governance, constitutional interpretation, and the administration of democracy in Nigeria, particularly as the country prepares for the 2027 general elections.

Brief Facts of the Case

The Incorporated Trustees of the National Forum of Former Legislators (“Plaintiff”) instituted the suit against INEC, the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), and the affected political parties mentioned above. The Plaintiff submitted that the political parties failed to satisfy the constitutional requirements necessary for their continued recognition as registered political parties in Nigeria [3]. The Plaintiff heavily relied on section 225A of the Constitution, contending that the affected parties neither secured the constitutionally prescribed electoral spread nor won any elective office sufficient to justify their continued registration. The Plaintiff therefore sought orders compelling INEC to deregister the parties and restrain them from participating in future elections. The parties on their part challenged the suit through various preliminary objections and applications. However, the objections were dismissed by the Court before judgment was eventually delivered in favour of the Plaintiff [4].

Issues for Determination

The central issue before the Court was: Whether, having regard to Section 225A of the Constitution and relevant provisions of the Electoral Act, the affected political parties had ceased to satisfy the constitutional conditions for continued registration, thereby empowering INEC to deregister them.

The Decision of the Federal High Court

The Court held that the affected political parties (ADC, A, AA, APP, and ZLP) failed to meet the constitutional threshold required for continued registration. Consequently, the Court ordered INEC to deregister the said parties and directed INEC not to permit the affected parties to participate in subsequent elections, including preparations for the 2027 general elections.

Analysis of the Judgment

The decision of the Federal High Court in the above case raises significant constitutional and electoral law questions concerning the regulation and continued existence of political parties in Nigeria. At its core, the judgment reiterates the principle that political party registration is not perpetual but remains subject to compliance with constitutional requirements. One notable aspect of the decision is its main focus on Section 225A of the Constitution, which provides:

“The Independent Electoral Commission shall have power to de-register a political party for –

1. breach of any of the requirements for registration;
2. failure to win at least twenty-five percent of votes cast in –
3. one state of the Federation in a Presidential election; or
4. one Local Government of the State in a Governorship election.
5. failure to win at least –
6. one ward in the Chairmanship election;
7. one seat in the National or State House of Assembly elections; or
8. one seat in the Councilorship election.”[5]

This decision succinctly and directly addresses the constitutional consequences of non-compliance with the above section by requiring INEC to deregister political parties that fail to satisfy the prescribed constitutional thresholds. The position is consistent with earlier judicial pronouncements where the courts have recognised the regulatory role of INEC in the registration and supervision of political parties, even though it is not as direct as this one on deregistration. In INEC v. Balarabe Musa [6], the Supreme Court acknowledged the constitutional responsibility of INEC in determining compliance with the conditions for party registration while affirming that political parties must operate within the framework prescribed by law. By directing the deregistration of the affected political parties in the instant case therefore, the Court appears to have adopted a strict and literal interpretation of the constitutional provisions governing the continued registration of political parties.

The significance of the judgment under review is the fact that it reopens the debate on the extent to which electoral performance should determine the legal survival of political parties within a constitutional democracy. The decision is also noteworthy for its treatment of INEC’s constitutional powers. While section 225A provides grounds upon which a political party may be deregistered, the judgment raises an important question as to whether the court may directly compel deregistration upon proof of non-compliance or whether the initiative and discretion for such action lie primarily within the constitutional mandate of INEC. In this regard, the constitutional principle that public institutions must exercise only those powers assigned to them by the Constitution becomes particularly relevant. This aspect of the decision is likely to attract considerable attention on appeal and may finally require clarification by the appellate courts.

The judgment also touches on the delicate balance between constitutional accountability and democratic pluralism. On one hand, the Constitution seeks to discourage the proliferation of inactive or electorally irrelevant political parties. On the other hand, political parties remain an essential component of representative democracy, serving as platforms for political participation, and the expression of alternative political viewpoints.

Beyond its legal implications, the judgment carries substantial political significance. The inclusion of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), one of the more prominent opposition parties in the country, means that the decision extends beyond a routine regulatory exercise and may have far-reaching consequences for political alignments, coalition-building efforts, and preparations for future elections.

While the judgment establishes the importance of constitutional compliance by political parties, it also raises questions that are far from settled. The anticipated appellate proceedings will provide an opportunity for further judicial examination of the scope of Section 225A, the limits of INEC’s powers, and the broader constitutional implications of political party deregistration in a democratic society.

It is for the above reasons that the case is likely to remain a focal point of constitutional, electoral and political discourse in the months ahead cum the journey towards the 2027 general elections.

Conclusion

The decision of the Court represents one of the most consequential political party regulation cases in recent years. While the judgment seeks to give effect to constitutional accountability for political parties, it also raises unresolved questions regarding the respective roles of the judiciary and INEC in enforcing party deregistration. These issues are particularly important given their direct implications for political participation in the upcoming general elections.

Since ADC has stated that it will challenge the Federal High Court judgment by filing an appeal at the Court of Appeal [7], then the outcome will shed more light on the scope of Section 225A and the proper institutional framework for enforcing it. Until then, the case remains a significant contribution to Nigeria’s evolving constitutional and electoral jurisprudence.

Citations and Endnotes

* Incorporated Trustees of National Forum of Former Legislators v. INEC & 6 Ors (Unreported, Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/2637/2026, judgment delivered by the Federal High Court, Abuja Division, Coram Peter Lifu, J. on 15 June 2026).

** Ahmod B. Ariyibi is a Senior Associate at Synergy Attornies, a litigation and commercial law firm based in Lagos State and Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. To reach him, contact +2348099186668/email ariyibiahmod00036@yahoo.com.

1. Supra (n *). See also Punch Newspaper report (Court orders deregistration of ADC, Accord, three others). https://punchng.com/court-orders-deregistration-of-adc-accord-three-others/ accessed on 16 June 2026.
2. The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (As Altered).
3. Arise News (Ex-Lawmakers Seek Court Order To Compel INEC To Deregister ADC, ZLP, Accord Party). https://www.arise.tv/ex-lawmakers-seek-court-order-to-compel-inec-to-deregister-adc-zlp-accord-party/ accessed on 16 June 2026.
4. Supra (n *).
5. Supra (n 2).
6. (2003) 3 NWLR (Pt. 806) 72 (SC).
7. Daily Post Newspaper report (Deregistration: ADC heads to appeal court). https://dailypost.ng/2026/06/16/deregistration-adc-heads-to-appeal-court/ accessed on 16 June 2026.