The Court of Appeal has restored the legal status of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) and four other political parties, delivering a landmark judgment that strengthens Nigeria’s multi-party democracy while sharply criticizing a Federal High Court judge for what it described as judicial misconduct.
In a unanimous decision delivered by a three-member panel led by Justice Abba Mohammed, the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal set aside the judgment of Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court, which had ordered the deregistration of the ADC, Accord Party, Action Alliance (AA), Action Peoples Party (APP), and Zenith Labour Party (ZLP).
The appellate court described Justice Lifu’s decision to proceed with the case despite an earlier order staying proceedings as an act of “judicial impertinence” and “judicial insubordination,” emphasizing that lower courts must obey the directives of superior courts.
The ruling comes as a major relief for the affected political parties, particularly the ADC, which has emerged as one of Nigeria’s leading opposition platforms ahead of the 2027 general elections.
Justice Lifu had, on June 15, ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister the five political parties, arguing that they failed to satisfy constitutional requirements for continued registration under Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
He further directed INEC to stop recognizing the parties, prevent them from submitting candidates, and bar them from participating in the 2027 general elections.
The judgment followed a suit filed by the National Forum of Former Legislators (NFFL), which argued that the parties failed to meet constitutional performance benchmarks, including winning at least 25 percent of votes in a state during presidential elections or securing elective offices at the federal, state, or local government levels.
The Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Prince Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), had also supported the plaintiffs, contending that retaining the parties on the register violated constitutional provisions.
However, dissatisfied with the ruling, the affected political parties and INEC challenged the decision at the Court of Appeal, which had earlier ordered a stay of execution pending the determination of the appeal.
Delivering Tuesday’s judgment, the appellate court held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the case and faulted Justice Lifu for ignoring an existing order staying proceedings.
The court also ruled that the National Forum of Former Legislators lacked the legal standing (locus standi) to institute the suit in the first place.
According to the appellate court, the suit itself was incompetent because it was filed by a non-juristic entity, meaning there was no valid legal action upon which the trial court could have based its decision.
The justices further held that evidence before the court showed that the affected political parties had complied with constitutional requirements and had won elective positions in previous elections.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal declared the judgment of the Federal High Court perverse, set it aside in its entirety, affirmed that the five political parties remain legally registered, and awarded costs against the National Forum of Former Legislators.
Reacting to the judgment, the ADC described the ruling as a victory not only for the party but also for constitutional democracy and the rule of law.
The party’s National Publicity Secretary, Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi, said the verdict confirmed the party’s long-standing position that the suit lacked merit and was fundamentally defective.
According to him, the appellate court also validated the ADC’s argument that the plaintiffs had no legal right to institute the action.
The party further expressed concern over the Appeal Court’s criticism of the trial judge, describing it as an issue that touches on judicial integrity and public confidence in the judiciary.
ADC National Chairman, Senator David Mark, welcomed the judgment, describing it as a victory for democracy, constitutionalism, and political pluralism.
Former Vice President and ADC presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, also hailed the verdict, saying it reaffirmed the judiciary’s role as the guardian of constitutional democracy.
He noted that the ruling demonstrated that justice remains the strongest protection against arbitrariness, particularly at a time when many Nigerians are concerned about the future of democratic governance.
Political analysts say the judgment could significantly reshape Nigeria’s opposition landscape ahead of the next general elections.
Political analyst and lecturer at Kano State College of Arts, Science and Remedial Studies (CAS), Dr. Kabiru Sa’idu Sufi, said the decision has restored confidence among opposition parties, especially the ADC.
He observed that although the matter could still proceed to the Supreme Court, the judgment has strengthened the morale of opposition politicians and renewed hope for competitive politics.
According to him, the decision also reassures Nigerians that the judiciary can still function as an impartial institution capable of protecting democratic principles.
However, he cautioned that the increasing number of court cases involving electoral matters has created uncertainty within the country’s political environment.
Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Salman Jawondo, said the judgment did not come as a surprise, arguing that INEC had already affirmed that the affected parties satisfied constitutional requirements for continued registration.
He maintained that once the electoral commission confirmed the legal status of the parties, the trial court had no basis for reaching a contrary conclusion.
Jawondo said the Appeal Court’s ruling simply restored the lawful status of the affected political parties and reaffirmed INEC’s constitutional authority over party registration.
Political scientist, Professor Gbade Ojo, described the judgment as a victory for democracy and Nigeria’s electoral process.
He argued that while political parties that consistently fail to perform could legitimately face deregistration, such actions should not occur close to a general election.
According to him, attempting to deregister parties during the election cycle risks undermining public confidence in the electoral process and may create the perception of political interference.
Professor Ojo urged the restored political parties to justify the court’s intervention by providing credible alternatives and strengthening democratic competition.
Also speaking, Deputy Vice Chancellor of Al-Hikmah University, Dr. Sikiru Nurudeen, noted that the legal battle may not be over, as parties still retain the constitutional right to approach the Supreme Court.
Another political scientist, Dr. Ibrahim Yahaya, said the development highlights the importance of judicial discipline and adherence to constitutional limits.
He warned that conflicting judicial pronouncements on politically sensitive matters could weaken public trust in the judiciary if not carefully managed.
The Court of Appeal’s judgment is widely seen as one of the most significant electoral rulings ahead of the 2027 general elections, reinforcing judicial hierarchy, protecting political pluralism, and preserving the participation of opposition parties in Nigeria’s democratic process.
