The Attorney-General of the Federation has urged the Federal High Court in Abuja to compel the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister five political parties, arguing that their continued existence violates constitutional provisions and undermines Nigeria’s electoral integrity.

In court filings, the Attorney General contended that unless the court intervenes, INEC would “continue to act in breach of its constitutional duty” by retaining parties that have failed to meet the minimum requirements prescribed by law.

The filing stressed that the right to associate as a political party is not absolute and must be exercised within constitutional limits. It further argued that it is in the interest of justice for the court to grant the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs.

The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2637/2026 and filed at the Abuja Judicial Division of the Federal High Court, lists the Incorporated Trustees of the National Forum of Former Legislators as the plaintiff.

The defendants include INEC as the first defendant and the Attorney General of the Federation as the second defendant, alongside five political parties: African Democratic Congress (ADC), Action Alliance (AA), Action Peoples Party (APP), Accord (A), and Zenith Labour Party (ZLP).

At the center of the issue in the case is whether INEC has a constitutional obligation to remove parties that fail to meet electoral performance thresholds set out in Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and reinforced by the Electoral Act 2022 and INEC’s own regulations.

The plaintiffs argue that the affected parties have persistently failed to satisfy the constitutional benchmarks required to retain their registration. These include winning at least 25 per cent of votes in a state during a presidential election or securing at least one elective seat at the national, state or local government level.

They contend that the parties performed poorly in the 2023 general elections and subsequent by-elections, failing to win seats across key tiers of government, yet continue to be recognised by INEC as eligible political platforms.

The plaintiffs maintain that this continued recognition is unlawful and undermines the integrity of Nigeria’s electoral system.

In the affidavit supporting the suit, the forum’s national coordinator, Igbokwe Raphael Nnanna, states that allowing parties that have not met constitutional requirements to remain on the register “is unconstitutional, illegal and a violation” of the governing legal framework.

The suit asks the court to declare that INEC is duty-bound to deregister such parties and to compel the commission to do so before preparations for the 2027 elections advance further.

Beyond declaratory reliefs, the plaintiffs are also seeking far-reaching orders that would bar the affected parties from participating in the next general elections or engaging in political activities such as campaigns, rallies and primaries. They further request injunctions restraining INEC from recognising or dealing with the parties in any official capacity unless and until they comply strictly with constitutional provisions.

Central to the plaintiffs’ argument is their interpretation of the law as imposing a mandatory duty on INEC. They argue that the use of the word “shall” in the Constitution leaves no room for discretion once a party fails to meet the stipulated thresholds.

In their written address, they rely on statutory provisions and judicial precedents to contend that electoral performance is an objective condition that must be enforced to maintain discipline, transparency, and accountability in the political system.

Tribune

Attention has shifted to the Supreme Court, which has fixed April 30 (today) for judgment in the leadership tussle within the African Democratic Congress (ADC).

A five-member panel led by Justice Mohammed Garba will resolve the appeal filed by the David Mark-led faction concerning the authentic leadership of the party.

Also on Thursday, the court is expected to determine the leadership dispute rocking the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

Two PDP factions—one led by Kabir Turaki and the other by the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike—are laying claim to the leadership of the party.

The Supreme Court had on April 22 reserved judgment in the ADC crisis to a date to be communicated to the parties involved in the tussle.

However, on Tuesday, the ADC formally wrote to the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, pleading for the quick delivery of judgment in the leadership tussle at the national level.

The party claimed it would suffer irreparable harm if judgment in the protracted battle was not delivered within the period allowed by the Electoral Act for fielding candidates for the 2027 general elections.

It stated in part: “Without the delivery of judgment within the next three days from the date of this letter, the ADC stands the grave and irreversible risk of being excluded from participating in the 2027 general elections.

“This would disenfranchise millions of Nigerians who have subscribed to the ideals of the ADC and deny them their constitutional right to freely associate and contest elections through a political party of their choice.”

At the April 22 hearing, Jibrin Okutepa, SAN, who represented David Mark, urged the Supreme Court to allow the appeal, arguing that the apex court had earlier, on March 21, 2025, held that “no court has jurisdiction to entertain matters bordering on the internal affairs of political parties.”

During the hearing, Okutepa urged the apex court to hold that the Federal High Court in Abuja lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

However, Robert Emukperu, SAN, who represented the first respondent, Nafiu Gombe, urged the court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the lower court, which held that the suit was premature.

It will be recalled that a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal dismissed Mark’s appeal, ruling that it was premature and filed without leave of the trial court.

In the PDP matter, the first appeal, marked SC/CV/164/2026, stems from a decision of Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja, who restrained the party from proceeding with its planned convention pending the determination of a suit filed by former Jigawa State Governor Sule Lamido.

On November 14, the court issued a final order restraining the PDP from conducting its national convention.

Justice Lifu held that Lamido was “unjustly denied” the opportunity to obtain a nomination form to contest for national chairman, in violation of the PDP constitution and internal regulations.

The Court of Appeal later upheld the decision on March 9, prompting the PDP to appeal.

The second appeal, SC/CV/166/2026, was filed by the PDP, its National Working Committee (NWC), and National Executive Committee (NEC).

It arose from a judgment delivered by Justice James Omotosho, which stopped the party from holding its Ibadan national convention.

The Court of Appeal upheld that decision, agreeing that INEC should not validate the outcome of the convention.

After hearing all arguments, the Supreme Court reserved judgment, stating that the date would be communicated to the parties.

Former President Olusegun Obasanjo has lambasted the administration of President Bola Tinubu over insecurity bedeviling the country.

In an interview with News Central, Obasanjo said any government that cannot protect lives and property of its citizens has no basis to exist.

The former leader was reacting to the recent wave of insecurity, which has confronted Nigeria, resulting in the killing of several citizens and abduction of others.

“Let me tell you, the government that cannot give security of life and property of its citizen has no right of existence.

“The elected members of our National Assembly have no right to fix their own salary and their own emolument.

“It’s not in our constitution for them to do that. It’s the revenue mobilization and allocation commission that should do it,” he said.