Before 2027: How A Court Order Reopened The Party Delisting Debate
A single ruling from the Federal High Court in Abuja has reopened one of the most delicate questions in Nigeria’s democracy: whether the state can lawfully shut down a political party, and if so, on whose terms. Justice Peter Lifu’s order directing the Independent National Electoral Commission to strike five parties off its register has drawn a sharp rebuke from the Court of Appeal, exposed a rift within the judiciary itself, and placed the machinery of party regulation at the centre of the countdown to the 2027 general elections.
The affected platforms are the African Democratic Congress, Accord Party, Action Alliance, Action Peoples Party and the Zenith Labour Party. Delivering judgment on Monday, June 15, 2026, Justice Lifu held that the five had failed to meet the constitutional performance thresholds required to retain registration. He barred INEC from recognising them, accepting their candidate nominations, or giving effect to their activities ahead of the 2027 polls, and ordered them to stop parading themselves as registered parties.
What makes the case unusual is not the outcome but its origin. Historically, deregistration in Nigeria has been an administrative act, carried out by INEC after auditing election results. This time, the process was set in motion by a court, following a suit by the Incorporated Trustees of the National Forum of Former Legislators, with the Office of the Attorney General of the Federation joined in the proceedings. The plaintiff asked the court to determine whether INEC has a constitutional duty to remove parties that fall below the benchmarks in Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution, as reinforced by the Electoral Act 2022 and INEC’s own regulations, arguing that the commission has no discretion to keep non performing parties on the register.
Notably, INEC itself opposed the suit. The commission told the court that the five parties could not be delisted because they had won seats in state and National Assembly elections, and it later aligned with the parties in challenging the judgment.
The dispute turns on a genuine tension inside the Constitution. Section 40 guarantees every citizen the right to assemble freely and to form or belong to political parties. Section 225A pulls in the other direction, empowering INEC to deregister a party that breaches its registration requirements, or fails to win at least 25 per cent of votes in one state in a presidential election or one local government area in a governorship poll, or fails to secure a ward in a chairmanship contest, a seat in the National or a State Assembly, or a councillorship seat. Fundamental rights are not absolute, but any restriction must be justifiable in a democratic society. Supporters of the provision say it keeps the ballot manageable and clears out parties with no real electoral footprint. Critics counter that it raises the barrier to entry for smaller and emerging platforms once dominant parties are already established.
The power has been used before, and tested before. In February 2020, INEC invoked Section 225A to deregister 74 parties that won no elective office in the 2019 general elections, leaving 18 on the register. In INEC v National Unity Party (2021), the Supreme Court held that Section 225A is self executing and vests the commission with clear authority to delist non performing parties. Yet that power is not unqualified. In ACD and 21 Others v INEC (2020), the Court of Appeal reinstated 22 of the deregistered parties, holding that even an express constitutional power must be exercised in line with the right to fair hearing under Section 36, including adequate notice and reasons.
The current episode has added a further, and more troubling, layer: a clash between courts. A three member panel of the Court of Appeal led by Justice Mohammed Danjuma had, on May 22, 2026, ordered a stay of further proceedings in the matter pending an appeal filed by the Accord Party, marked CA/ABJ/CV/569/2026. Justice Lifu nonetheless proceeded to deliver judgment, holding that no valid stay had been served on his court. The following day, June 16, another Court of Appeal panel, led by Justice Abubakar Mohammed, granted a stay of execution and delivered a stinging assessment of the trial judge’s conduct. The appellate court described his decision to press ahead as “the highest form of judicial impertinence” and said it amounted to “judicial rascality,” reminding lower courts that “this court has supervisory authority over the trial court” and that its integrity must be protected. INEC’s counsel told the panel the commission had not been notified of the judgment date, having understood that delivery was suspended.
The stakes reach well beyond legal principle. The parties in the dock include vehicles central to opposition and off cycle contests. The ADC has been positioned as a coalition platform for figures including former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, while Osun State Governor Ademola Adeleke has publicly tied his political fortunes to the Accord Party, insisting after the ruling that the party “will be on the ballot on August 15th” for the state’s off cycle governorship election. That timing, months to a major poll, has fuelled concern that an instrument designed for neutral administrative housekeeping could be turned into a tool of political litigation aimed at specific platforms.
The reaction has been swift. The ADC rejected the judgment as a threat to democracy and political stability. The Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria called on the National Judicial Council to investigate the circumstances of the ruling, while the Tap Initiative for Citizens’ Development petitioned the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, who chairs the NJC, seeking a probe of the trial judge’s conduct.
For now, the parties retain their place on the register. The Court of Appeal has adjourned the substantive appeals to July 7, 2026, to allow the parties file and exchange briefs, meaning the question of whether the delistings stand remains unresolved.
The Supreme Court has already settled that the Constitution permits deregistration. What the coming rulings will help clarify is the process: whether delisting must follow transparent guidelines, proper notice and a genuine chance to be heard, and how far it can be insulated from politically driven suits. In an election cycle where the size and shape of the party field carries obvious consequences, that procedural question may prove just as important as the constitutional one.