The Court of Appeal in Abuja halted the deregistration of five political parties on Tuesday, including the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Accord Party, Action People's Party (APP), Action Alliance (AA), and Zenith Labour Party (ZLP). This came a day after the Federal High Court in Abuja ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister them for failing to meet the constitutional threshold under Section 225 of the 1999 Constitution. Justice Peter Lifu had issued the ruling on Monday, citing non-compliance with electoral requirements.
A three-member panel of the appellate court strongly criticised Justice Lifu for proceeding with the case, stating it was done despite an existing order from the Court of Appeal and the pendency of the matter before it. The appellate judges described the lower court's action as judicial rascality. They ordered a stay of execution of Justice Lifu's judgment, effectively suspending the deregistration directive. The ruling provides temporary relief to the five parties, allowing them to maintain their recognition pending the final determination of the appeal.
Section 225 of the 1999 Constitution grants INEC the authority to deregister political parties that do not meet set conditions, such as performance in elections. The five parties were found not to have satisfied these criteria. However, the Appeal Court's intervention underscores the procedural dispute over judicial authority in the matter. The appellate court's decision does not rule on the parties' compliance but challenges the manner in which the lower court handled the case.
Justice Lifu issued a binding deregistration order even after the Appeal Court had already taken jurisdiction over the case, creating a direct clash in judicial authority. His actions being labelled judicial rascality by a higher court undermines public confidence in the fairness of proceedings affecting party survival. The five parties remain recognised only because a higher court intervened, not because their constitutional standing was affirmed. This raises questions about the consistency of judicial processes in politically sensitive rulings.
Editorial note: AI-assisted opinion, not established fact. Full disclaimer →
