The Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister the African Democratic Congress (ADC) and four others parties over failure to meet the constitutional threshold to be eligible as political parties.
Justice Peter Lifu, in a judgement, ordered INEC to deregistered the affected parties having failed to secure 25 per cent of the votes in the last general elections in compliance with the provisions of the law.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the five political parties include ADC, Accord (A), Action Alliance (AA), Action Peoples Party (APP) and Zenith Labour Party (ZLP).
Judtice Lifu, who earlier dismissed all the multiple preliminary objections filed by the defendants, ordered INEC not to allow the parties participate in the subsequent elections, including the 2027 general polls, having failed to meet the constitutional threshold.
A group, the Incorporated Trustees of the National Forum of Former Legislators had filed the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/2637/2026 against the five political parties.
The plaintiff named INEC, the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), ADC, AA, APP, A, ZLP as 1st to 7th defendants respectively in the suit.
It prayed the court for an order of injunction restraining the INEC from receiving or accepting from the five parties or any of ifs organs, any correspondence for the purposes of conducting any political activities to seek votes for their members having failed to secure at least one elected seat af the presidential, governorship, National Assembly, House of Assembly and/or councillorship elections in Nigeria in accordance with the provisions of Section 225(A) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), among other reliefs.
Delivering the judgment, Justice Lifu held that the questions raised and transmitted to the court by the plaintiff in the amended originating summons were all answered in the affirmative.
“Consequently, the plaintiff case succeeds in part as follows:
“It is hereby declared that the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th defendants having failed to secure, meet up with and comply with the 25 per cent constitutional threshold to be eligible as political parties and having failed to satisfy all constitutional pre-conditions to have the status of a registered political party in Nigeria should be deregistered by the 1st defendant (INEC) from the list of political parties.
“The 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th defendants, having faild to secure the constitutional threshold, should be deregistered from the list of registered political patties in Nigetia and are therefore not eligible or entitled to participate in the general electiins scheduled for 2027 or any other date set by the 1st defendant.
“The 1st defendant is hereby directed and ordered to set the necessary machineries in motion for deregistration of the affected political parties and should not accept any correspondence from the affected entities forthwith.”
The judge further ordered the electoral umpire “to employ its constitutional and all its legal powers to deregister any political party that had not met the constitutional minimum threshold with a view to sanitising the political space.”
Justice Lifu, however, did not make an order as to cost.
Earlier in the ruling, the judge dimissed all the objections raised by the five parties including INEC.
The judge held that the argument by the five political parties that a stay of proceedings had already been granted by the Court of Appeal was no longer tenable, the parties having adopted their final written addresses and the matter adjourned for judgement.
His words: “The words used in Section 225A of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) are plain, direct, express and simple and should be given its literal meaning.
“Any deviation therefrom will not meet the goal and the mischief the lawmakers want fo cure.
“Proliferation of political parties without any purposeful and intentional design to promote democratic ideals should be discouraged.
“Any tendencies towards pollution of the political environment by making merchandise of the ignorant members and the electorate must be frown at by the court.”
According to him, there is the argument in this suit that the Court of Appeal has stayed the judgment of this court.
“It must be recognised that this court has the obligation indeed to observe due difference to the highly honoured orders and decision of appellate court in the tradition of much cherished practice of adjudication under and in view of the constitutional hierarchy of court structure.
“It must also be remembered that as at the time of adoption of final written addresses of all the learned counsel for the parties in this suit, there was no order for stay of proceedings from any court served on this court neither was any such extant order of any appellate court shown to the court by any of the learned counsel.
“All what is on record of this court was that there is a pending interlocutory appeal, suffice it to say that the application for stay in this court has been heard and ruling duly entered in form of dismissal.
“The position of the law is that the rules of court do not have provision for the arrest of judgement as the defendants in this case are attempting to do,” he said, citing previous decisions of the court.
Jutsice Lifu stated that the Supreme Court had, over the years, maintained that the judgement of a court cannot be arrested by litigant under any guise.
He also cited previous decisions of the court to back the ruling.
According to him, there is however an exception to this rule.
“This exception lies in the fact that where the process of court is about to be abused, it will be the duty of the court to prevent such an abuse.
“In the instant case, there is no express, direct and specific order of court staying the judgment of this court by the appellate court capable of creating such exception.
“In the case of Dingyadi vs. INEC (No.1) (2010) 18 NWLR Pt. 1224 1 2010 4-7 SC, the Sokoto Division of the Court of Appeal was specifically stopped from delivering judgment in an appeal basically to stop an abuse of court process.
“This is not the case here in my considered view.
“The defendants all participated in the proceedings, including the ones leading to the three interlocutory rulings and proceeded to adopt their respective objections to jurisdiction and the main originating summons.
“Fair hearing was duly granted to all parties and the judgment of the court was accordingly fixed in the presence of all parties or their counsel.
” If any party wants to suspend the operation of an order fixing a case for judgment, they must seek a specific order staying the effect of those orders.
“In my considered view, this is the implication of the court’s decision in the case of Zenith Bank Pic vs. John 2015 7NWLR Pt. 1458 393.
“In the absence of any specific order putting on hold the judgment of the court coupled with the fact that there is no inferred abuse of court process and counsel has adopted all their processes while this court has statutory limit to deliver its judgment, I hold that there is no legal impediment to the delivery of the judgment of this court.
“Based on my conclusion and reasoning aforesaid, the multiple preliminary objections of all the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th defendants as differently constituted, all fail and are accordingly dismissed,” justice Lifu declared.
