Legal Battle Over Political Party Deregistration Highlights Constitutional Tensions in Nigeria
The recent ruling by the Abuja Federal High Court, which mandates the deregistration of five political parties, has intensified the ongoing debate about the balance between constitutional provisions and democratic integrity in Nigeria. Judge Peter Riff ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to remove the African Democratic Congress, Accord, Action Alliance, Action People’s Party, and Zenith Labor Party from its official register due to their underperformance in the general election.
While a subsequent stay of proceedings from the Court of Appeal has temporarily alleviated concerns for the affected parties, it raises a crucial question: can a state legitimately dissolve a political party? This issue exposes a fundamental contradiction between two sections of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).
Article 40 of the Constitution affirms every citizen’s right to assemble freely and associate with others, explicitly affirming the right to form or join a political party. In stark contrast, Section 225A functions as a restriction, allowing the state to limit this freedom based on specific performance criteria that must be met by political parties.
Under Article 225A, INEC is authorized to deregister political parties that fail to meet any of the following conditions: they must not violate any fundamental registration requirements; they must receive at least 25 percent of the votes in at least one state during a presidential election or in one local government area during a gubernatorial election; or they must win at least one district or seat in the National or Provincial Assembly, or at least one city council seat.
Though fundamental rights are not absolute, any infringement in a democratic context must be justifiable. Proponents of Section 225A assert that it serves the public good by limiting the electoral process to parties that can demonstrate substantial support. Conversely, critics argue that this provision creates formidable barriers for emerging parties, effectively shaping a political landscape dominated by a select few established parties.
This issue is not merely theoretical; in February 2020, INEC invoked Article 225A to deregister 74 political parties that did not secure electoral positions in the 2019 general elections, ultimately leaving only 18 parties registered. The Supreme Court’s ruling in INEC v. National Unity Party (2021) confirmed that Section 225A is self-executing, providing INEC with clear authority to remove noncompliant parties from its roster.
However, the lawsuits that followed the mass deregistrations in 2020 illustrated that this power must be exercised with procedural fairness in mind. In the case ACD & 21 Others v INEC (Court of Appeal, 2020), the court reinstated 22 of the deregistered parties, underscoring that even constitutionally granted executive powers must comply with Article 36, which guarantees the right to a fair hearing.
Recent litigation involving the ADC and four other parties signals a shift that legal experts must note. Traditionally, deregistration stemmed from an administrative review by INEC based on election results. In this instance, however, the action was prompted by a court ruling following a lawsuit from the Corporate Board of the National Forum of Former Members of Parliament, with backing from the Attorney General’s Office.
This evolving dynamic risks transforming what was intended as an impartial administrative tool into a politically charged mechanism, especially when private organizations leverage the legal system to influence INEC decisions regarding the deregistration of parties that may challenge established power structures as the 2027 general elections approach.
The Court of Appeal’s recent scathing critique of the lower court’s handling of the case raises substantial concerns about adherence to the rule of law. A three-member panel, led by Justice AB Mohammed, condemned the trial court’s decision to proceed with judgment despite an appellate order for a stay. The principle of lis pendens mandates that, once appellate intervention occurs, all parties, including lower courts and INEC, must preserve the status quo until a final ruling is made. Ignoring such orders jeopardizes both judicial integrity and constitutional order.
Looking ahead, Nigeria requires a more principled application of Article 225A. At a minimum, three key safeguards are essential: first, INEC should develop clear guidelines that outline the criteria and process for performance audits and deregistration reviews; second, affected parties need timely administrative notice and a fair opportunity to contest any proposed deregistration; and third, the deregistration process should strive to remain an objective administrative function, insulated from politically motivated litigation.
Ultimately, the pivotal question is not if the Constitution permits deregistration—this has already been affirmed by the Supreme Court in INEC v. NUP—but rather whether the manner in which this power is exercised strengthens or undermines Nigeria’s already fragile multiparty democracy.
Godwin Daramola, legal practitioner and PhD researcher, UK
