By Rareview
The Court of Appeal in Abuja has ordered a stay of execution of a Federal High Court judgment directing the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister five political parties, setting the stage for what may become one of the most consequential electoral and judicial disputes ahead of Nigeria’s 2027 general elections.
The affected parties are the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Action People’s Party (APP), Action Alliance (AA), Zenith Labour Party (ZLP) and Accord.
In a strongly worded ruling delivered on Tuesday, a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal, led by Justice Abbah Mohammed, suspended the enforcement of the Federal High Court judgment and sharply criticised the lower court for proceeding with the case despite an earlier appellate court order staying further proceedings.
“The decision of the lower court to proceed with the judgment despite the express order of this court is the highest form of judicial impertinence,” Justice Mohammed said.
The appellate court further described the action as a “brazen violation” of the judicial hierarchy and cited previous Supreme Court pronouncements that characterised such conduct as “judicial rascality.”
The controversy began on Monday when Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court, Abuja, ordered INEC to deregister the five parties, ruling that they had failed to meet constitutional requirements under Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution.
According to the court, the parties failed to secure the constitutional threshold required to retain their status as registered political parties.
Justice Lifu directed INEC to commence the deregistration process and further ordered that the affected parties should not be allowed to participate in future elections, including the 2027 general polls.
The suit was filed by the Incorporated Trustees of the National Forum of Former Legislators, which argued that the parties had failed to win the minimum electoral support required under the Constitution.
In defending his decision, Justice Lifu maintained that there was no specific appellate court order stopping him from delivering judgment and argued that Nigerian law does not permit litigants to arrest a court’s judgment merely because an appeal is pending.
“The position of the law is that the rules of court do not have provision for the arrest of judgment,” the judge held.
However, lawyers representing the affected parties painted a different picture before the Court of Appeal.
Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Musibau Adetunbi, counsel to Accord Party, told the appellate court that a previous panel of the Court of Appeal had expressly ordered the trial court to suspend proceedings pending the determination of issues before it.
“My noble lords, for over 25 years of my practice, I have never seen such a direct affront in the administration of justice,” Adetunbi said.
Another lawyer in the matter, Shuaibu Arua, described the events at the lower court as “bizarre,” alleging that Justice Lifu was informed of the appellate court order but proceeded nonetheless.
The Court of Appeal agreed with the submissions and ordered an immediate stay of execution, effectively preserving the status of the parties pending the determination of the substantive appeal.
The African Democratic Congress, one of the parties affected by the judgment, welcomed the appellate court’s intervention and reiterated its opposition to the deregistration order.
In a statement signed by its National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, the ADC described the Federal High Court judgment as a threat to democracy and warned that removing opposition parties from the political landscape could undermine public confidence in democratic institutions.
“We reject any attempt to intimidate, suppress, deregister or politically extinguish our party,” Abdullahi stated.
The party also announced plans to petition the National Judicial Council over the conduct of the trial judge.
Beyond the immediate legal dispute, the case raises important questions about the future of Nigeria’s multi-party democracy.
Supporters of political party deregistration argue that Nigeria’s electoral system has become overcrowded with parties that possess little or no electoral relevance. They contend that reducing the number of inactive parties would streamline the ballot, lower administrative costs and strengthen political accountability.
Critics, however, warn that any move to eliminate political parties must be undertaken strictly within constitutional and legal boundaries. They argue that political competition, regardless of the size of participating parties, remains a cornerstone of democratic governance and that judicial actions perceived as targeting opposition groups could fuel political tensions ahead of a crucial election cycle.
Political analysts note that the controversy arrives at a sensitive moment in Nigeria’s political evolution, with coalition talks and opposition realignments already generating significant interest ahead of 2027.
With the Court of Appeal’s intervention, the immediate threat to the five parties has been suspended. Yet the legal battle is far from over, and its eventual outcome could shape broader perceptions of judicial independence, electoral fairness and democratic inclusion in Nigeria.