By Alex Ter Adum. PhD
The reported judgment of Justice Peter Lifu directing the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Accord Party and other political parties is, with due respect, one of the most troubling judicial interventions in Nigeria’s democratic evolution since the return to civil rule in 1999.
If media reports accurately reflect the contents of the judgment, then the decision represents not merely a grave error of law but a profound assault on the constitutional foundations of political pluralism, freedom of association and democratic participation.
The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria guarantees every citizen the right to freely associate and participate in the political process through political parties of their choice. Political parties are not the creation of the Executive, the Judiciary or INEC. They are constitutional instruments through which citizens exercise their sovereignty and democratic rights.
Any interpretation of Section 225A of the Constitution that transforms a regulatory provision into a weapon for the wholesale elimination of opposition political parties is fundamentally flawed. Constitutional provisions cannot be read in isolation. They must be construed holistically, harmoniously and in a manner that advances, rather than restricts, democratic freedoms.
What makes the judgment particularly perplexing is the apparent disregard of uncontested facts contained in the record before the court itself.
The African Democratic Congress (ADC) demonstrably satisfied the constitutional thresholds prescribed under Section 225A of the Constitution. In the 2023 general elections, the party secured two seats in the House of Representatives, including the election of Hon. Leke Abejide, and also won six seats in various State Houses of Assembly across the Federation, including the election of Hon. Cephas Dyako representing Konshisha State Constituency in Benue State.
These facts were not matters of speculation or partisan assertion. They were expressly acknowledged and corroborated by INEC in its counter-affidavit before the court. Once the electoral body constitutionally charged with maintaining electoral records confirmed that ADC had attained the relevant constitutional benchmarks, one is left genuinely perplexed as to what legal or evidential basis informed the conclusion that the party failed to meet the constitutional thresholds required for continued registration.
Even more troubling is the preliminary issue of standing. The plaintiffs themselves appear not to have possessed the requisite locus standi to maintain the action. Nigerian constitutional jurisprudence has consistently required a claimant to demonstrate a sufficient legal interest before invoking the jurisdiction of the court. Where such standing is absent, the proper judicial response is ordinarily to decline jurisdiction rather than proceed to determine substantive constitutional questions.
These twin difficulties, the apparent absence of locus standi and the existence of uncontroverted evidence establishing ADC’s compliance with constitutional requirements, raise serious questions about the legal foundation of the judgment.
However, the most disturbing aspect of this entire episode is not even the substantive error allegedly contained in the judgment. It is the apparent disregard of a subsisting order of the Court of Appeal.
The judicial system is built upon an immutable hierarchy. Decisions of lower courts remain subject to the supervisory authority of superior courts. Once the Court of Appeal assumes jurisdiction over a matter and issues directives regulating proceedings before a lower court, judicial discipline and constitutional order demand strict compliance.
Available records indicate that in Appeal No. CA/ABJ/CV/569/2026 arising from Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/2637/2025, a panel of the Court of Appeal comprising Justices Mohammed A. Danjuma, Adebunkunola A. Banjoko and Oyejoju O. Oyewumi granted a stay of further proceedings and directed that no further action be taken pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.
That order was reportedly made on 22 May 2026.
The appeal itself had already been scheduled for hearing on 27 October 2026.
If these facts are correct, then a profoundly troubling question emerges: by what constitutional or legal authority could a trial court proceed to deliver a judgment on a matter that was already the subject of a subsisting appellate order restraining further action?
The issue transcends the fortunes of ADC, Accord Party or any other political party.
It strikes directly at the integrity of the judicial process itself.
The rule of law requires obedience not only from citizens and government officials but equally from judges. Judicial authority cannot be sustained where courts selectively comply with orders issued by superior courts.
Indeed, the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised that obedience to court orders is the foundation of constitutional governance. If a lower court can proceed in defiance of an extant order of the Court of Appeal, then the very architecture of judicial hierarchy begins to collapse.
This is why the matter raises issues far more serious than electoral regulation.
It concerns judicial propriety.
It concerns institutional discipline.
It concerns the preservation of public confidence in the administration of justice.
The apparent reasoning behind this judgment reduces democracy to a mere arithmetic exercise. It assumes that parties that fail to attain certain electoral thresholds automatically forfeit their constitutional existence. Such a rigid and mechanical interpretation ignores the broader constitutional values that underpin Nigeria’s democratic order.
Democracy is not designed to protect only successful political parties. It is designed to preserve the right of citizens to organise, mobilise, persuade and seek electoral support, regardless of whether they presently command widespread electoral success.
Many of the world’s most influential political parties began as marginal movements with little electoral relevance. Had similar reasoning been applied elsewhere, numerous historic political transformations would never have occurred.
The ultimate judge of a political party’s relevance in a democracy is the electorate, not the courtroom.
The timing of this judgment only deepens public concern.
Nigeria is approaching a critical electoral cycle. The African Democratic Congress has increasingly emerged as a focal point of opposition coalition-building and national political realignment. Against that backdrop, a judicial decision purporting to extinguish opposition political platforms inevitably attracts heightened scrutiny.
Many Nigerians will therefore view this judgment as part of a broader pattern of attempts to weaken opposition forces and gradually pave the way towards a de facto one-party state.
Whether that perception is ultimately justified or not, the judiciary bears a special responsibility to avoid circumstances capable of generating such doubts.
Nothing is more dangerous to constitutional democracy than the belief that courts have become instruments of partisan political engineering.
The Constitution does not exist to protect governments from opposition.
It exists to protect citizens from the excessive concentration of power.
Political competition is not a defect in democracy.
It is democracy.
The preservation of multiple political platforms, ideological diversity and electoral choice lies at the heart of constitutional governance.
The more one examines the circumstances surrounding this judgment, the more difficult it becomes to avoid the conclusion that something has gone fundamentally wrong.
A party that secured representation in the House of Representatives and several State Houses of Assembly was declared constitutionally non-compliant.
A suit allegedly commenced by persons whose standing remains highly questionable was entertained to final judgment.
Official records acknowledged by INEC itself appear to have been disregarded.
And perhaps most remarkably, a judgment of immense constitutional significance appears to have been delivered notwithstanding a subsisting order of the Court of Appeal directing that further action be stayed pending the determination of an appeal.
Such a convergence of legal anomalies is extraordinary.
The cumulative effect is to create the unfortunate appearance that law may have yielded to politics.
That perception, whether ultimately justified or not, is profoundly damaging to public confidence in the judiciary.
Courts must not merely dispense justice.
They must be seen to dispense justice.
Whenever judicial actions appear to coincide too neatly with the political objectives of incumbent power, legitimate questions will inevitably arise regarding institutional independence.
For these reasons, urgent appellate intervention has become imperative.
The Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court and ultimately the National Judicial Council must subject this judgment to the most rigorous constitutional scrutiny.
The questions requiring answers are straightforward:
- How can a political party certified by INEC as meeting constitutional thresholds be declared non-compliant?
- How can a suit allegedly initiated without proper standing proceed to produce such far-reaching consequences?
- How can a court deliver judgment in circumstances where the Court of Appeal had reportedly ordered a stay of further proceedings pending the determination of an appeal?
Until satisfactory answers are provided, this judgment will remain vulnerable to the gravest criticism.
If the reports surrounding it are accurate, it represents not merely an error of law but a dangerous departure from constitutionalism itself.
Nigeria’s democracy was built through sacrifice, struggle and the blood, sweat and tears of countless citizens.
It must never be surrendered to judicial adventurism, political manipulation or constitutional distortion.
History has never been kind to institutions that facilitated the erosion of democratic freedoms.
Nor will it be kind to those who, through action or omission, permit constitutional safeguards to become instruments of political exclusion.
The Nigerian people deserve better.
The Constitution demands better.
And democracy itself requires nothing less.
Justice Lifu and whoever is behind this judicial perfidy must be held to account.
For the ADC, Accord and the other political parties this unfortunate judgement should not derail their preparations for 2027 because this rogue judgement cannot stand.
Alex Ter Adum. PhD DDG THE NARRATIVE FORCE
alexadum45@gmail.com
