…the AGF argued that citizens, including the plaintiff group, have the right to challenge constitutional breaches.
ABUJA, NIGERIA- The iNews Times| The bid by the Forum of former legislators to compel the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister five political parties has received a major boost, with the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice joining the group in the legal battle.
Although the AGF is listed as a defendant in the suit against the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Accord Party, and three others, he made a dramatic turn at the Federal High Court in Abuja by aligning with the former legislators in seeking the scrapping of the affected parties ahead of the 2027 general elections.
The Minister based his position on the argument that the continued existence of ADC, Accord Party, and others violates constitutional provisions and undermines Nigeria’s electoral integrity.
He 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 legal requirements.
In filings before the court, the AGF stressed that the right to associate as a political party is not absolute and must be exercised within constitutional limits.
He 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 sole plaintiff.
The defendants include INEC as the first defendant and the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) as the second defendant, alongside five political parties: African Democratic Congress (ADC), Action Alliance (AA), Action Peoples Party (APP), Accord Party (A), and Zenith Labour Party (ZLP).
At the heart of the case is whether INEC has a constitutional obligation to remove parties that fail to meet electoral performance thresholds outlined in Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria and reinforced by the Electoral Act 2022, as well as INEC’s own regulations.
The plaintiffs argued that the affected parties have consistently failed to meet the constitutional benchmarks required to retain registration. These include securing at least 25 per cent of votes in a state during a presidential election or winning at least one elective seat at the national, state, or local government level.
They maintained 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.
According to the plaintiffs, this continued recognition is unlawful and undermines the integrity of Nigeria’s electoral system.
In an affidavit supporting the suit, the forum’s National Coordinator, Igbokwe Raphael Nnanna, stated 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 seeks a declaration that INEC is duty-bound to deregister such parties and to compel the commission to do so before preparations for the 2027 elections progress further.
Beyond declaratory reliefs, the plaintiffs are requesting far-reaching orders to bar the affected parties from participating in the next general elections or engaging in political activities such as campaigns, rallies, and primaries. They also seek injunctions restraining INEC from recognising or dealing with the parties in any official capacity unless they fully comply 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 relied on statutory provisions and judicial precedents to assert that electoral performance is an objective condition that must be enforced to ensure discipline, transparency, and accountability in the political system.
Meanwhile, in a notice filed pursuant to Order 15 Rule 1 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019, the AGF, despite being a defendant, formally aligned with the plaintiff’s case within the scope of his constitutional responsibilities.
He maintained that, as the chief law officer of the federation, he is obligated to defend and uphold the Constitution, including ensuring compliance with the Electoral Act and other election-related laws.
The filing emphasised that the Attorney General’s role extends beyond litigation to preventive oversight, ensuring that laws are faithfully implemented to sustain public confidence in the electoral process. It described the case as a public interest litigation aimed at safeguarding democratic integrity and promoting constitutional compliance.
According to the document, the AGF argued that citizens, including the plaintiff group, have the right to challenge constitutional breaches, especially in matters concerning electoral processes. He added that supporting such litigation aligns with his dual responsibility as both a defender of the state and an advocate for citizens’ rights.
The submission also highlighted the broader implications of non-compliance by political parties, noting that retaining underperforming parties contributes to ballot congestion, increases the cost of election administration, and undermines the intent of Section 225A of the Constitution, which empowers INEC to deregister such parties.
The plaintiffs further argued that INEC has no residual discretion to retain parties that fail to meet constitutional criteria, insisting that failure to deregister them constitutes an ongoing breach of duty. The suit warned that such inaction can be challenged through public interest litigation, as is currently before the court.
Additionally, the filing noted that the plaintiff group, comprising former legislators, has the legal standing to institute the action, given its role in the enactment and oversight of Nigeria’s constitutional and electoral framework.
The Attorney General also underscored the importance of access to justice, stating that his support for the suit helps bridge gaps faced by citizens seeking to enforce constitutional rights. He emphasised that collaboration between government institutions and civic actors is vital to strengthening legal awareness, accountability, and democratic participation.
The Attorney General of the Federation is represented in the suit by a legal team led by Joshua Olatoke, alongside O. J. David, U. O. Olufadi, D. O. Bamidele, V. D. Maiye, Waheed Abdulraheem, and A. K. Abdulmumin, all of whom signed the court filing before the Federal High Court in Abuja.
