The Court of Appeal in Abuja has set aside the June 15 judgment delivered by Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court, Abuja.
The judge ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister the African Democratic Congress (ADC) and four other political parties for allegedly failing to meet the 25 per cent constitutional threshold required to remain as political parties.
Besides the ADC, the other affected political parties are the Action Peoples Party (APP), Action Alliance (AA), Accord Party (A) and the Zenith Labour Party (ZLP).
In a series of unanimous judgments yesterday, a three-member panel of the appellate court, led by Justice Abba Mohammed, allowed the appeals filed by the affected political parties against the June 15 judgment.
Reacting to the judgment, the African Democratic Congress (ADC) and its presidential candidate, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, said the judicial pronouncement was a victory for democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law.
The appellate court held that the Federal High Court was wrong to have assumed jurisdiction over the suit originally filed by a group – The National Forum of Former Legislators (NFFL) – which was a non-jurisic entity as at the time it filed the suit on December 8, 2025.
Justice Mohammed and the two other members of the panel – Justices Donatus Okorowo and Oyejoju Oyewumi – faulted all the grounds on which Justice Lifu founded his judgment.
The Court of Appeal held that the Federal High Court was wrong to assume jurisdiction over the suit filed by the NFFL, which was not yet a registered entity as of December 8, 2025, when it instituted the action.
The appellate court further held that the trial court was wrong to have entertained and granted the application by the NFFL to amend the plaintiff in its original suit to reflect – the Incorporated Trustees of the NFFL – when the original suit was itself incompetent, having been initiated by a non-jurisic entity.
The Court of Appeal also faulted the decision of the trial court to deliver its June 15 judgment in flagrant disregard of its May 22 subsisting order, directing it to stay further proceedings pending the determination of pending appeals against its earlier decisions.
It came down hard on the trial court for disobeying its May 22 order, stating that even though the trial judge’s attention was drawn to the order for a stay of proceedings, he intentionally flouted it and delivered judgment.
It held that Justice Lifu’s action was “a form of judicial impertinence,” stressing that the Supreme Court had previously held that a judge who acts in such a manner “is unfit for the bench, as the conduct amounts to judicial rascality”.
The appellate court held that the trial court erroneously evaluated the evidence before it to reach a wrong conclusion that the five affected political parties failed to meet the 25 per cent constitutional threshold to further exist as political parties.
It found that the trial court failed to consider evidence placed before it that revealed that some of the political parties won elections into Houses of Assembly, local government positions and the House of Representatives.
The Court of Appeal held that the trial court was wrong to have hinged its decision of the claim that some of those who originally won elections on the platforms of the affected parties later defected.
It also held that although the issue of detention was not before the trial court, the reported detention of those who won elections on the platform of the affected political parties did not take away the fact that the political parties won those seats and positions during the elections and should not have formed the basis to activate Section 225 of the Constitution.
The judgments were on the appeals filed by the affected political parties against the June 15 judgment.
But the Court of Appeal dismissed the interlocutory appeals filed by some of the political parties against the trial court’s ruling, allowing the amendment of the originating suit.
The appellate court held that the appellants failed to obtain the prior leave of the court as required under Section 242(1)of the Constitution.
Also, in separate statements by the party’s National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, and the Special Adviser on Media and Publicity to the National Chairman, Mr. Kola Ologbondiyan, the ADC and its National Chairman, Senator David Mark, said the judgment vindicated the party’s longstanding position that the suit lacked merit and was fundamentally flawed.
According to the party, the Court of Appeal held that the plaintiffs lacked the requisite locus standi to institute the action, having failed to establish any legal interest peculiar to themselves.
The appellate court was also said to have ruled that the plaintiffs relied on speculative claims that they had previously contested elections and might do so again, which it found insufficient to invoke the court’s jurisdiction.
The ADC further said the appellate court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove their claims with credible evidence and reaffirmed that INEC had presented unchallenged evidence showing the party met the constitutional and electoral requirements for its continued existence.
The party also stated that the Court of Appeal faulted the reasoning of the trial court on the status of elected ADC officials, noting that despite affidavit evidence showing the party had elected representatives, including three members from Kogi State, the lower court concluded they had defected to another political party without evidence before it.
The party described those findings as significant for the integrity of the judiciary and the administration of justice.
The ADC said the Court of Appeal equally rejected the trial court’s interpretation of Section 225A of the Constitution, holding that although the lower court acknowledged the proper constitutional position, it reached conclusions inconsistent with both the Constitution and the evidence before it.
It added that the appellate court ultimately affirmed that the ADC satisfied the constitutional threshold for recognition as a political party and remained entitled to continue its political activities under the Constitution and the Electoral Act.
Also, Senator David Mark described the ruling as a victory not only for the ADC but also for Nigeria’s democracy and constitutional order. NigerianBusiness Coverage
“The verdict is a reassuring reminder that our judiciary can still rise above pressure and protect democracy, political pluralism and the constitutional rights of citizens and political parties,” Mark said.
The party chairman said the judgment had restored confidence in the judiciary and reaffirmed the courts’ role as guardians of democratic values and the rule of law.
The former Senate President argued that attempts to deregister the ADC amounted to an assault on Nigeria’s multiparty democracy and the constitutional right of citizens to freely associate and participate in the political process.
He said: “Our attention now returns fully to building a stronger, more united and people-oriented political platform that will offer Nigerians a credible alternative in 2027. We must remain steadfast, disciplined and committed to the task ahead,” he said. NigerianBusiness Coverage
Also, Atiku Abubakar described the judgment as a major victory for democracy and the rule of law.
He said the appellate court’s decision has effectively cleared the party’s path to participate in the 2027 general election.
In a statement yesterday, Atiku’s media office said the appellate court’s judgment, alongside an earlier ruling of the Federal High Court affirming the election of the Senator David Mark-led National Executive Committee of the ADC, had resolved all pending legal disputes challenging the party’s status and leadership.
According to the statement, the Court of Appeal held that the judgment delivered by Justice Peter Lifu on June 15 was a nullity because it was delivered in disobedience to a subsisting order of the appellate court.
It added that the court also ruled that the respondents lacked the requisite locus standi to institute the action, describing their claims as speculative and legally unsustainable.
The Atiku Media Office further stated that the Court of Appeal clarified that Section 225A of the Constitution should be interpreted disjunctively rather than conjunctively and held that, since the Osun and Ekiti election cycles were still ongoing when the suit was instituted, the action was premature.
According to the statement, the appellate court also found that the trial court disregarded uncontroverted affidavit evidence presented by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), which confirmed that the ADC and the other affected political parties had complied with the constitutional and statutory requirements for continued registration.
“As the nation moves steadily towards the 2027 general election, political contests must be settled by the votes of Nigerians—not by contrived lawsuits designed to achieve through the courtroom what cannot be won at the ballot box,” the statement said. NigerianBusiness Coverage
It hailed the Justices of the Court of Appeal for what it called their courage, impartiality and fidelity to the Constitution, adding that the judgment had strengthened public confidence in the administration of justice and reaffirmed the supremacy of the rule of law.
It expressed confidence that “truth, justice and the democratic will of the Nigerian people will always prevail”
Source: The Nation News
You must be logged in to post a comment.