Post by Jude Akpevweoghene Daniel, Esq (@jdaniel)
Today, the Federal High Court in Abuja delivered judgment in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/2637/25, ordering INEC to deregister several political parties including ADC, Accord and others for failing to meet the requirements of Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
This outcome confirms with striking precision the advisory I sent almost two months ago to some members of the political class, including a sitting governor (name withheld) who were considering defecting or forming new political vehicles because of internal crises in their parties.
For context, here is the exact constitutional provision: Section 225A CFRN (as inserted by the Fourth Alteration Act No. 9 of 2017): "The Independent National Electoral Commission shall have power to de-register a political party for—
(a) breach of any of the requirements for registration;
(b) failure to win at least twenty-five percent of votes cast in—
(i) one State of the Federation in a Presidential election, or
(ii) one Local Government of the State in a Governorship election;
(c) failure to win at least—
(i) one ward in the Chairmanship election,
(ii) one seat in the National or State House of Assembly election, or
(iii) one seat in the Councillorship election."
In that advisory, I quoted the Supreme Court holding in N.U.P. v. I.N.E.C. (which I advised works against the parties now sued). Supreme Court held:
“The powers of Independent National Electoral Commission to deregister a political party is statutory. It is provided for in section 225A of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended by the Fourth Alteration Act No.9 of 2017). In this case, the respondent is statutorily empowered to deregister any political party that falls short of any of the conditions contained in Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution (as amended)." (Pp. 341, paras. B-C; 359, para. D)
The FHC,I believe, has now applied this binding Supreme Court precedent to the present suit. It is a subsisting judgment which, rightly or wrongly decided, remains binding precedent on all courts — including the Supreme Court itself — until it is invited to depart from it.
The strongest defence available to the five parties was the issue of locus standi (legal standing of the plaintiffs to file the suit). The moment the plaintiffs succeeded on that point, the case was effectively decided against the parties on the merits.
Narratives about pockets of victories by these parties in the 2023 elections will not change the outcome. The Apex Court, while treating the requirements as disjunctive, turned around to regard them as disjunctively cumulative.
Personally, I hold the view that the Supreme Court interpreted the Constitutional provision above in error. The literal interpretation of the law doesn't connote conjunctive application.
Were golden canon of interpretation to be adopted too, I still do not think that in a democracy the intent of the drafters was for a political party to cease to exist after winning 25% of a state or local government in the respective executive elections, or after securing a legislative seat. To insist that the wins must cut across the board is to give the Constitution a narrow interpretation on matters of political and constitutional rights.
All stated above regardless, until the Supreme Court is properly invited to depart from its earlier decision when this case eventually reaches it, this remains the law. No different outcome should be expected.
Most of the commentaries attacking the Federal High Court today are, respectfully, coming from a place of limited professional knowledge of the law as it stands. Surely, something must be done and should be done, but the venue isn't the Federal High Court but the Supreme Court that set this dangerous precedent.
@arisenews
#Section225A #INEC #PoliticalParties #ConstitutionalLaw #RuleOfLaw
0 likes · 0 comments · 0 shares