The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has fixed June 5, 2026, as the date to deliver judgment in a closely watched case that could significantly alter Nigeria’s political space ahead of the 2027 general elections. The suit, which has attracted national attention from political stakeholders, legal experts, and electoral observers, centers on whether several registered political parties should continue to exist under Nigerian law.
At the heart of the matter is a request asking the court to compel the Independent National Electoral Commission, widely known as INEC, to deregister a number of political parties that are alleged to have failed to meet constitutional requirements for continued recognition. Among the parties specifically mentioned in the suit are the African Democratic Congress, the Accord Party, the Zenith Labour Party, and the Action Alliance.
The case is being handled with a sense of urgency due to its potential implications for Nigeria’s electoral process. With political activities already building momentum ahead of the next general elections, a ruling in favor of deregistration could force a major realignment within the country’s political structure.
The legal action, filed under suit number FHC ABJ CS 2637 2026, was initiated by the Incorporated Trustees of the National Forum of Former Legislators. The group is represented by senior advocate Yakubu Abdullahi Ruba. The plaintiffs argue that INEC has failed in its constitutional responsibility by allowing certain political parties that have not demonstrated sufficient electoral performance to remain on the official register.
Their argument is anchored on provisions of Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution as amended, along with Section 75 subsection 4 of the Electoral Act 2022. These laws outline clear conditions that political parties must meet in order to retain their registration status in Nigeria.
Read more on: Nigerian Army Addresses Claim of Terrorist Base in South-West
According to the plaintiffs, the constitution does not permit political parties to exist indefinitely without demonstrating measurable participation and success in elections. They maintain that parties are expected to meet specific benchmarks, such as securing at least 25 percent of votes in at least one state during a presidential election or winning at least one elective seat at different levels of governance, including local government councils, state assemblies, governorship contests, or seats in the National Assembly.
The National Forum of Former Legislators contends that the parties listed in the suit have consistently failed to achieve these minimum requirements over multiple election cycles. They point specifically to the 2023 general elections and subsequent by elections, during which, they claim, the affected parties did not record any meaningful electoral victories.
In a supporting affidavit submitted to the court, the chairman of the forum’s Board of Trustees, Igbokwe Raphael Nnanna, explained that the continued existence of such parties is not only unnecessary but also detrimental to the country’s democratic system. He argued that allowing inactive or non performing parties to remain registered contributes to confusion among voters and complicates the overall electoral process.
One of the major concerns raised by the plaintiffs is the issue of overcrowded ballot papers. In many Nigerian elections, ballot papers often contain a long list of political parties, some of which are largely unknown to the electorate. This, according to the former lawmakers, can overwhelm voters and increase the likelihood of mistakes, leading to a higher number of invalid or void votes.
They also pointed out that maintaining a large number of inactive political parties imposes an avoidable financial burden on INEC and, by extension, Nigerian taxpayers. The logistics of organizing elections, including printing ballot papers, training personnel, and monitoring party activities, become more complex and expensive when the number of registered parties is unnecessarily high.
Read more on: 175 ISIS Fighters Eliminated in Massive Nigeria–U.S. Joint Counterterrorism Operation
Furthermore, the plaintiffs argued that the proliferation of weak political parties makes election management more difficult than it should be. They believe that streamlining the number of active parties would lead to a more efficient and credible electoral system.
The case has received additional weight with the involvement of the Attorney General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi, who has aligned with the plaintiffs. His participation signals the federal government’s interest in ensuring that constitutional provisions governing political parties are strictly enforced.
On the other side of the legal battle, the affected political parties have mounted a strong defense in an attempt to protect their continued existence. Their legal representatives, including senior advocate Musibau Adetunbi, have challenged the suit on both procedural and substantive grounds.
Earlier in the proceedings, the defense team filed an application seeking to halt the case. They argued that certain preliminary issues raised in the matter had already been taken to the Court of Appeal. According to them, continuing with the case at the Federal High Court while those appeals were still pending would amount to a violation of their right to a fair hearing as guaranteed under Section 36 of the Constitution.
The defense maintained that the court should suspend proceedings until the appellate court had delivered its decision on those preliminary matters. They insisted that moving forward regardless of the pending appeals could prejudice their case and undermine the integrity of the judicial process.
However, the presiding judge, Justice Peter Lifu, dismissed the application for a stay of proceedings. In his ruling, he emphasized the urgency and public importance of the case, noting that Nigeria’s political calendar does not allow for prolonged delays in matters that could affect upcoming elections.
Read more on: Waiver Granted as PDP Clears Jonathan for Presidential Primary
Justice Lifu pointed out that with preparations for the 2027 elections already underway, including party primaries and other pre election activities, it was essential to resolve the issue without unnecessary technical setbacks. He made it clear that the court was committed to delivering a timely decision that would provide clarity for all parties involved.
Following the conclusion of arguments from both sides, the court adjourned the matter and fixed June 5, 2026, as the date for judgment. On that day, the court is expected to determine whether INEC should be compelled to deregister the political parties named in the suit.
The potential consequences of the judgment are far reaching. If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, INEC would be legally required to remove the affected parties from its register. This would mean that those parties would no longer be recognized as legitimate political entities and would be barred from participating in future elections.
Such a decision could trigger a wave of political realignments, as members and supporters of the deregistered parties may be forced to join other existing parties or form new alliances. It could also lead to a more streamlined political environment with fewer but potentially stronger parties competing for power.
Observers have noted that this would not be the first time Nigeria has undertaken such a cleanup of its political party system. In February 2020, INEC deregistered 74 political parties that failed to meet constitutional requirements. That action was later upheld by the Supreme Court in 2022, which affirmed the electoral body’s authority to enforce compliance with the law.
As the June 5 judgment date approaches, attention remains firmly fixed on the Federal High Court in Abuja. Political actors, civil society organizations, and the general public are all keenly interested in the outcome, recognizing that it could shape the structure and competitiveness of Nigeria’s democracy in the years ahead.
For now, all eyes are on the judiciary as it prepares to deliver a decision that could redefine the rules of political participation in Africa’s most populous nation.
Read more on:
