The case, filed by the Incorporated Trustees of the National Forum of Former Legislators (NFFL), argues that these parties violated electoral laws by not achieving minimum performance benchmarks. The plaintiff cites Section 225(A) of the 1999 Constitution and Section 75(4) of the Electoral Act 2022, which mandate that parties must secure at least 25% of votes in one state during presidential elections, win a local government area in governorship elections, or hold at least one legislative seat from councillorship to the National Assembly. The NFFL claims the ADC and others have failed to meet any of these criteria in past elections, rendering their continued registration unlawful.
INEC and the Attorney-General of the Federation are named as defendants in the suit. The plaintiff seeks judicial clarity on whether INEC is obligated to enforce these thresholds and whether the parties retain legal legitimacy. Additionally, the NFFL questions whether INEC can lawfully recognize activities like primaries, campaigns, or election participation by non-compliant parties. If the court rules in the plaintiff’s favor, it could lead to a declaration that INEC must enforce constitutional benchmarks as a precondition for party registration, followed by orders to deregister the parties and prohibit INEC from acknowledging their activities until compliance is achieved.
Supporting the suit, an affidavit by Hon. Igbokwe Nnanna of the NFFL alleges INEC negligence in upholding electoral standards. It states that the ADC and others have not won a single elective position—presidential, gubernatorial, or legislative—since their registration, nor have they secured 25% of votes in any state. Despite this, INEC continues to recognize them, contravening the Electoral Act and its own guidelines. The plaintiff warns that allowing these parties to participate in 2027 risks overcrowding ballots, wasting resources, and confusing voters.
The NFFL frames the lawsuit as a public interest action to strengthen democracy and ensure adherence to the rule of law. The case has been assigned to Justice Peter Lifu, whose decision could set a precedent for electoral accountability. Legal experts note that the outcome may reshape Nigeria’s political landscape by enforcing stricter party performance standards, potentially reducing the number of parties on future ballots.
Critics, however, argue that deregistration could limit political diversity and disadvantage smaller parties. They contend that systemic challenges—such as funding disparities and voter apathy—contribute to poor performance, not just party incompetence. Meanwhile, supporters of the suit emphasize that enforcing constitutional requirements will streamline elections and ensure only viable parties compete.
The hearing on February 24 will mark a critical step in this legal battle, with implications for Nigeria’s electoral integrity and democratic processes. Observers anticipate intense scrutiny of the court’s interpretation of constitutional provisions and INEC regulatory role. The case also highlights tensions between maintaining inclusive multiparty democracy and enforcing performance-based accountability.
Beyond the legal arguments, the suit reflects broader political dynamics, particularly the ADC role as an opposition coalition. Its potential deregistration could alter strategies for anti-Tinubu forces ahead of 2027. Analysts suggest the timing underscores the high stakes of Nigeria’s electoral reforms, as parties jockey for position in a contentious political climate.
As the date approaches, stakeholders—including civil society groups, legal scholars, and party officials—are expected to weigh in on the debate. The court ruling may prompt legislative reviews or INEC policy adjustments, further shaping the trajectory of Nigeria’s democracy. For now, all eyes remain on the Federal High Court, where a single judgment could redefine the rules of political participation in Africa’s most populous nation.
