By Alex Ter Adum, PhD
The controversy surrounding the purported challenge by the Peace Movement Party (PMP) to the registered logo of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) must be resolved strictly within the framework of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), the Electoral Act, 2022, the Regulations and Guidelines of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) for the registration of political parties in Nigeria, and settled principles of Nigerian constitutional jurisprudence, not through political expediency, judicial overreach or administrative arbitrariness.
The Constitution, particularly Sections 222 to 224, lays down the mandatory conditions an association must satisfy before it can qualify for registration as a political party. However, satisfying those constitutional conditions does not, without more, transform an association into a political party. Registration by INEC is the decisive legal act that confers statutory recognition and entitles an association to the rights, privileges and protections accorded to political parties under Nigerian law.
The Electoral Act reinforces this constitutional scheme by vesting in INEC the exclusive responsibility to examine every proposed political party’s name, acronym, logo, symbol and flag before registration. The Commission is under a statutory duty to reject any application whose proposed identity is identical with, deceptively similar to, or likely to be confused with that of an existing registered political party. This is not a post-registration exercise but a mandatory pre-registration obligation imposed on INEC to safeguard the integrity of the electoral process.
INEC’s own Regulations and Guidelines amplify this statutory responsibility by requiring the Commission to ensure that no proposed political party is registered with a name, acronym, logo, flag or symbol capable of misleading voters or creating confusion with those of another registered political party. Once INEC completes this scrutiny and proceeds to register a political party, there arises a strong presumption that the Commission has discharged its statutory duty and determined that the party’s identity satisfies the constitutional and statutory requirements of distinctiveness. It does not matter whether the process was concluded administratively by INEC or through an order of mandamus by the court.
It follows, therefore, that any dispute concerning the similarity of a political party’s logo or symbol ought properly to arise and be conclusively determined during the registration process. The law does not contemplate a situation where INEC, having exercised its statutory discretion or compelled by order of a court it didn’t challenge because the order offended no provisions of the law and it’s guidelines and regulations, and registered a political party pursuant to a subsisting judgment of a competent court, subsequently seeks to invalidate that very registration on grounds which it was legally obliged to investigate before registration.
Against this backdrop, the legal foundation of PMP’s complaint before the the Federal High Court several months after the judgement was delivered appears fundamentally problematic. Assuming PMP remains an unregistered association, it neither enjoys the constitutional status nor the statutory recognition of a political party that deserves protection under the law. While voluntary associations may possess limited legal interests under other branches of law, they do not enjoy the statutory rights and electoral protections which the Constitution, the Electoral Act and the INEC Guidelines reserve for duly registered political parties. The statutory protection of political party names, logos, symbols and flags is a consequence of lawful registration, not merely an aspiration to be registered.
Equally significant is the question of locus standi. A body that has neither been registered by INEC nor recognised as a political party bears the burden of demonstrating a legally enforceable interest sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the court against a political party whose registration has already been perfected. That burden is particularly onerous where the relief sought would have the effect of nullifying rights already vested in a registered political party pursuant to a final judgment of a competent court.
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the entire controversy, however, is the apparent attempt to reopen issues already settled by a final judgment. Once a court has finally determined the rights of parties and delivered judgment on the merits, it becomes functus officio. Save for narrowly recognised exceptions, such as the correction of clerical slips or accidental errors, it lacks jurisdiction to revisit, vary or substantially reverse its own final judgment through a subsequent motion. That doctrine is one of the oldest safeguards of judicial certainty and the rule of law. It exists to ensure that litigation comes to an end and that judgments of competent courts command finality and respect.
If, therefore, the Federal High Court, having ordered the registration of NDC, subsequently entertained proceedings that effectively undermine or reverse that final judgment without the intervention of an appellate court, serious constitutional questions inevitably arise regarding judicial competence, jurisdiction and the sanctity of final judgments.
The position of INEC is equally deserving of close scrutiny. As the constitutional body entrusted with regulating political parties, the Commission is expected to act consistently, impartially and in strict fidelity to the Constitution and the Electoral Act. It cannot approbate and reprobate. Having examined, accepted and registered NDC’s name, logo and symbol pursuant to a valid court order, any subsequent attempt to rely upon an order that derogates from that final judgment to withdraw recognition would expose the Commission to allegations of administrative inconsistency, arbitrariness and unequal application of the law.
Ultimately, the Court of Appeal now has an opportunity to reaffirm some of the most fundamental principles underpinning Nigeria’s constitutional democracy: the finality of judgments, the sanctity of due process, the certainty of electoral administration and the independence of constitutional institutions from political manipulation. Electoral jurisprudence cannot flourish where final judgments are rendered provisional, where statutory procedures are retrospectively rewritten, or where vested legal rights are subjected to administrative uncertainty.
The rule of law demands a different outcome. It demands that constitutional procedures be respected, that statutory safeguards be faithfully observed, that judicial finality be preserved and that political parties duly registered in accordance with the Constitution, the Electoral Act and lawful court orders be protected from attempts to defeat vested rights through collateral proceedings. Anything short of this would not merely prejudice one political party; it would diminish the certainty, credibility and integrity of Nigeria’s entire electoral and constitutional order.
Alex Ter Adum, PhD
DDG THE NARRATIVE FORCE
alexadum45@gmail.com
