The Federal High Court in Abuja has scheduled a ruling for March 24 on a joinder application in a case seeking the deregistration of five political parties due to alleged constitutional violations.
The case, referenced as FHC/ABJ/CS/2637/25, was filed by the Incorporated Trustees of the National Forum of Former Legislators against the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the Attorney General of the Federation, and the political parties involved: African Democratic Congress, Accord Party, Zenith Labour Party, and Action Alliance.
Initially, the lawsuit targeted only the African Democratic Congress but was later amended to include the four other parties.
During Tuesday’s proceedings, legal representatives for all parties, except Action Alliance, were present in court. Two separate counsels, Ibrahim Yakubu and Bello Lukman, each claiming to represent Action Alliance, presented distinct letters of instruction from different law firms.
Justice Peter Lifu, presiding over the case, instructed the two lawyers to resolve their representation conflict, cautioning that the court would take appropriate measures if they were unable to do so.
Counsel for the Accord Party, Musibau Adetunbi, SAN, sought permission to file an additional counter-affidavit, arguing its necessity to address key facts that were not included in the earlier submission. He contended that the new affidavit would assist the court in making a comprehensive ruling.
However, the plaintiff’s counsel opposed this application, arguing that no new facts had been introduced in the amended originating summons to warrant a further counter-affidavit. The plaintiff urged the court to dismiss the request.
Justice Lifu has set March 24 for the ruling on the joinder application and various other pending motions in the case.
During a recent hearing, the lead counsel for the plaintiffs informed the court of an application to amend the originating summons dated January 28, asserting that all parties had been served. The respondents confirmed receipt and indicated that they had filed counter-affidavits in response.
Some defense counsels requested additional time to regularize their processes and submitted a motion questioning the court’s jurisdiction. However, the plaintiffs opposed this request for an extension.
After considering the arguments presented, the presiding judge granted the extension and acknowledged the plaintiff’s reply on points of law as properly filed.
Following the session, the plaintiffs’ counsel explained that the lawsuit seeks a judicial interpretation of the constitutional and statutory provisions governing the registration and continued recognition of political parties.
According to court documents, the case is founded on Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), Section 75(4) of the Electoral Act, 2022, and pertinent provisions of the Federal High Court rules.
The plaintiffs contend that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is mandated to deregister political parties that do not meet certain electoral performance benchmarks, which include securing a minimum of 25 percent of votes in one state during a presidential election or winning seats at any level of government.
In a supporting affidavit, the forum accused INEC of neglecting to enforce these requirements and continuing to recognize parties that have failed to reach the necessary thresholds since their registration.
The suit seeks declarations that would compel INEC to adhere to these constitutional standards and restrain it from recognizing the affected parties until they comply. The plaintiffs argue that allowing such parties to participate in the upcoming 2027 general elections would unnecessarily expand ballot papers and lead to increased public expenditure.
About the Author
