Atiku welcomes Appeal Court order staying party deregistration judgement

The Nigerian Court of Appeal recently issued an order staying the execution of a Federal High Court judgment that had directed the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister five political parties, including the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Accord Party, Action Alliance (AA), Action Peoples Party (APP), and Zenith Labour Party (ZLP). The Federal High Court, presided over by Justice Peter Lifu, had ordered the deregistration on the grounds that these parties failed to meet the constitutional performance thresholds stipulated in Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). The appellate court's decision to grant a stay was primarily based on the trial judge's disregard for an earlier subsisting order of the Court of Appeal, which had stayed proceedings in the matter. This development has been widely welcomed by affected parties and political stakeholders, who view it as a crucial intervention safeguarding multi-party democracy and upholding judicial hierarchy.

Nigeria's political landscape was recently gripped by a significant legal development concerning the registration status of several political parties. A Federal High Court in Abuja had ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister five political parties, citing their failure to meet constitutional requirements. This judgment sent ripples through the political class, particularly as it came with implications for future elections.

However, the Court of Appeal swiftly intervened, granting a stay of execution on the Federal High Court's judgment. This appellate decision was not merely a procedural pause but a strong rebuke of the trial court's conduct, which was deemed to have disregarded a subsisting order of the higher court. The ruling has been welcomed by prominent political figures, including Atiku Abubakar, the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), who emphasized the judiciary's opportunity to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law. This article delves into the legal intricacies of this development, examining the statutory framework for party deregistration, the principles governing stays of execution, and the broader implications for Nigeria's democratic process and judicial integrity.

The power of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to register and deregister political parties is a critical aspect of Nigeria's electoral jurisprudence, primarily derived from the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), and the Electoral Act 2022. Specifically, Section 225A of the Constitution empowers INEC to deregister political parties that fail to meet certain performance thresholds. These thresholds include the failure to win at least 25% of votes cast in one state in a presidential election, or one local government in a governorship election, or one seat in the National or State Assembly, or one councillorship seat.

Historically, the deregistration of political parties has been a contentious issue in Nigeria, often leading to extensive litigation. The Supreme Court has previously affirmed INEC's constitutional powers in this regard, notably in cases such as *National Unity Party (NUP) & Anor v. Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC)*, where the apex court upheld the deregistration of 74 political parties for failing to meet constitutional requirements. This established a precedent for INEC's authority, provided due process is followed. The recent Federal High Court judgment against the ADC and four other parties was predicated on these constitutional provisions, following a suit initiated by the National Forum of Former Legislators.

The recent Federal High Court judgment, delivered by Justice Peter Lifu, ordered the deregistration of five political parties based on their alleged failure to meet the electoral performance benchmarks stipulated in Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). The plaintiff, the National Forum of Former Legislators, argued that these parties did not secure the requisite percentage of votes or elective seats in the 2023 general elections and by-elections. However, the subsequent intervention by the Court of Appeal introduced a significant procedural dimension to the dispute.

The Court of Appeal's decision to grant a stay of execution was not primarily an assessment of the substantive merits of the deregistration but rather a strong condemnation of the trial court's disregard for judicial hierarchy. The appellate court found that Justice Lifu proceeded to deliver judgment despite a subsisting order from the Court of Appeal, dated May 22, 2026, which had stayed further proceedings in the matter pending the determination of an appeal. This conduct was described by the Appeal Court as "judicial impertinence" and "judicial rascality," constituting a brazen violation of the hierarchy of courts and the 1999 Constitution.

Applications for a stay of execution are equitable remedies, granted at the discretion of the court, to prevent the subject matter of an appeal (the 'res') from being destroyed or to ensure that an appeal, if successful, is not rendered nugatory. The principles guiding such grants, as established in cases like *Vaswani Trading Co. Ltd v. Savalakh & Co* (1972) All NLR 922, (1972) 12 SC 50, and *P.H.M.B v. Utomi* (1999) 13 NWLR (Pt. 636) P. 572, emphasize the need for the discretion to be exercised judiciously and judicially. In this instance, the Appeal Court's decision was a direct enforcement of its own authority and a clear message against judicial insubordination.

Notably, INEC, which had initially opposed the deregistration suit at the Federal High Court, was the party that initiated the application for the stay of execution at the Court of Appeal. This stance by the electoral body underscores the procedural irregularities that plagued the Federal High Court's judgment. The implications of this stay are far-reaching, temporarily preserving the registration status of the affected parties and allowing them to pursue their appeals, thereby safeguarding their participation in the upcoming 2027 general elections. The episode highlights the judiciary's crucial role in upholding constitutionalism and ensuring adherence to established legal procedures, particularly in politically sensitive matters.

The Court of Appeal's order staying the deregistration judgment against the African Democratic Congress and four other political parties represents a critical affirmation of judicial hierarchy and the rule of law in Nigeria. By rebuking the trial court for disregarding a subsisting order of stay of proceedings, the appellate court has sent a clear message about the imperative of procedural rectitude and respect for judicial authority. This decision not only offers temporary reprieve to the affected political parties but also reinforces public confidence in the judiciary's capacity to act as a check against potential overreach or procedural missteps by lower courts.

For legal practitioners, this development underscores the importance of understanding and meticulously adhering to appellate procedures, particularly concerning stays of execution and proceedings. It also highlights the ongoing dynamism in Nigeria's electoral jurisprudence, where the constitutional powers of INEC to regulate political parties are continually tested and refined through judicial interpretation. As the substantive appeal proceeds, all eyes will remain on the judiciary to definitively resolve the underlying issues of party deregistration, ensuring that the principles of multi-party democracy and constitutional governance are robustly upheld.