JUST IN: Court Order on Party Deregistration Sparks Fresh Constitutional Debate Over INEC Powers
By OGB Joseph
Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) and legal practitioner, Dr. M. O. Ubani, has questioned the constitutional validity of the recent Federal High Court judgment directing the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister five political parties, warning that the ruling may have stretched judicial authority beyond the position established by the Supreme Court.
In a detailed legal analysis, Ubani argued that while the Supreme Court had affirmed INEC’s constitutional power to deregister political parties under Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), it never held that such power could be compulsorily enforced through the courts at the instance of private litigants.
The judgment ordered INEC to deregister the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Action Alliance (AA), All Progressives Party (APP), Accord Party and Zenith Labour Party (ZLP), reigniting debate over the limits of judicial intervention in electoral administration.
According to the senior lawyer, the central issue is whether INEC’s constitutional responsibility to determine compliance with electoral performance thresholds remains an administrative function or has become a mandatory duty that courts can compel without the commission first making its own determination.
Ubani maintained that Section 225A requires INEC to first evaluate whether a political party has failed to meet constitutional requirements before any deregistration can lawfully occur, stressing that courts should not substitute their judgment for that of an independent constitutional body.
He also questioned the legal standing of the Incorporated Trustees of the National Forum of Former Legislators, which instituted the suit, arguing that the claimants failed to demonstrate any direct legal injury or infringement of their civil rights capable of conferring locus standi.
Citing several Supreme Court authorities, including Adesanya v. President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Thomas v. Olufosoye and A.G. Kaduna State v. Hassan, Ubani noted that Nigerian law generally requires litigants to show a sufficient legal interest before invoking the jurisdiction of the courts, except in recognised constitutional exceptions.
He further warned that compelling INEC to deregister political parties without its own administrative determination risks eroding the constitutional autonomy of the electoral body and blurring the separation between administrative discretion and judicial oversight.
The legal scholar identified three issues he believes the appellate courts must clarify: whether Section 225A creates a self-executing mandatory obligation or one dependent on INEC’s evaluation; whether the claimants possessed the requisite locus standi; and whether the court improperly substituted its judgment for that of the electoral commission.
Ubani concluded that although the Supreme Court has upheld INEC’s power to deregister political parties, critical constitutional questions regarding standing, administrative discretion and the scope of judicial compulsion remain unresolved.
He warned that judicial interventions of this nature could further narrow Nigeria’s political space and called on the appellate courts to define the constitutional boundaries between electoral regulation, administrative discretion and judicial oversight.
Leave a Comment