DEREGISTRATION OF POLITICAL PARTIES, CONSTITUTIONALISM, AND THE RULE OF LAW

By Bello Charles Kolawole (Ph.D)

Introduction

The recent judgment of the Federal High Court, Abuja, delivered by Justice Peter Lifu, directing the deregistration of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) and several other political parties, has once again brought to the forefront the delicate intersection between constitutional law, electoral administration, and democratic governance in Nigeria. Predictably, the decision generated intense political debate, with many commentators viewing the ruling through partisan lenses rather than constitutional principles.

However, the subsequent decision of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to challenge aspects of the judgment at the Court of Appeal, particularly on grounds relating to lack of fair hearing and absence of proper notice, demonstrates the Commission’s commitment to due process, institutional neutrality, and constitutionalism. The development equally highlights the profound legal expertise and professional leadership that Professor Joash Amupitan, SAN, a distinguished constitutional lawyer and renowned authority in the law of evidence, has brought to the administration of Nigeria’s electoral system.

At a time when the nation’s political environment remains highly polarized ahead of major electoral contests, INEC’s measured response offers a compelling example of how legal scholarship, constitutional fidelity, and institutional independence can strengthen democratic governance.

Constitutional Basis for Deregistration of Political Parties

The constitutional authority for deregistration of political parties is firmly rooted in Section 225A of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). The provision empowers INEC to deregister political parties that fail to satisfy specific electoral performance thresholds. Among the grounds for deregistration are:

1. Failure to comply with registration requirements.
2. Failure to secure at least twenty-five percent of votes cast in one state during a presidential election.
3. Failure to obtain twenty-five percent of votes cast in at least one local government area in a governorship election.
4. Failure to win at least one ward in a chairmanship election.
5. Failure to win at least one seat in the National Assembly, State House of Assembly, or councillorship election.

The constitutional language is explicit and mandatory. It establishes a minimum electoral viability test for political parties seeking continued recognition within Nigeria’s democratic framework.

The rationale behind this constitutional amendment, introduced through the Fourth Alteration Act and championed by former Deputy Senate President Senator Ike Ekweremadu, was to strengthen democratic institutions by reducing the proliferation of dormant political parties that existed largely on paper without meaningful electoral presence.

Judicial Validation of INEC’s Deregistration Powers

The constitutionality of Section 225A is no longer a matter of speculation. It has received authoritative judicial interpretation by the Supreme Court in National Unity Party v. Independent National Electoral Commission (2021) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1799) 250.

The litigation arose from conflicting judgments of different panels of the Court of Appeal concerning INEC’s deregistration powers. While one appellate panel affirmed the Commission’s constitutional authority, another reached a contrary conclusion on procedural grounds.

To resolve the uncertainty, INEC approached the Supreme Court. In a unanimous judgment delivered by Justice Chima Nweze, JSC, the apex court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 225A and affirmed INEC’s power to deregister non-performing political parties.

That landmark decision settled the law and established a binding precedent that remains applicable today.

Consequently, Justice Lifu’s judgment did not create a new legal principle. Rather, it relied upon an existing constitutional provision and a settled line of judicial authorities that have already received the imprimatur of the Supreme Court.

Why INEC’s Appeal Reflects Institutional Neutrality

Notwithstanding the constitutional legitimacy of deregistration, INEC’s decision to challenge the Federal High Court judgment on procedural grounds deserves commendation.

The Commission reportedly raised concerns regarding lack of notice and issues touching on fair hearing. These objections are neither political nor partisan. They are fundamental constitutional safeguards.

A cornerstone of constitutional democracy is that no person, institution, or organization should be affected by judicial proceedings without being afforded an opportunity to be heard. The doctrine of audi alteram partem remains one of the foundational pillars of natural justice.

By appealing aspects of the judgment, INEC has demonstrated that constitutional compliance extends beyond substantive outcomes to include procedural fairness.

Importantly, the Commission did not reject the constitutional validity of Section 225A. Rather, it sought appellate clarification on whether the process leading to the judgment satisfied the requirements of due process.

This distinction is crucial.

A politically motivated institution would be tempted to embrace any judgment that advances a perceived partisan objective. A neutral institution, by contrast, is concerned with the integrity of both the process and the outcome.

INEC’s position falls squarely within the latter category.

Professor Joash Amupitan’s Legal Leadership

The measured and legally sophisticated approach adopted by INEC reflects the intellectual influence and professional competence of its Chairman, Professor Joash Amupitan, SAN.

Professor Amupitan is widely respected as one of Nigeria’s foremost constitutional scholars and experts in the law of evidence. Throughout his distinguished academic and professional career, he has consistently demonstrated a commitment to the supremacy of the Constitution, due process, and the rule of law.

The significance of legal expertise in electoral management cannot be overstated.

Election administration in contemporary democracies extends far beyond logistics and voter registration. It increasingly involves the interpretation of complex constitutional provisions, management of competing political interests, resolution of legal disputes, and protection of democratic legitimacy.

An electoral commission led by an individual with deep constitutional knowledge is better positioned to navigate legal controversies without succumbing to political pressure.

The decision to seek appellate review instead of adopting a politically expedient posture reflects precisely the type of institutional maturity expected from a commission headed by a distinguished constitutional lawyer.

Constitutionalism Versus Political Sentiment

As Dr. Kayode Ajulo, SAN, rightly observed, Justice Lifu’s judgment should be viewed not through the prism of political suspicion but through the broader lens of constitutional fidelity.

Section 1(1) of the Constitution provides unequivocally:

“This Constitution is supreme and its provisions shall have binding force on all authorities and persons throughout the Federation.”

This constitutional command leaves little room for selective compliance.

Political parties may disagree with the consequences of Section 225A. Citizens may debate the wisdom of the provision. Political actors may question the timing of its enforcement.

Yet constitutional democracy requires obedience to constitutional provisions until they are amended through lawful processes.

The rule of law demands that constitutional obligations be applied consistently, regardless of political convenience.

Strengthening Democracy Through Institutional Independence

The broader significance of this episode lies in what it reveals about the evolution of democratic institutions in Nigeria.

A credible electoral commission must maintain equal distance from all political actors. It must neither function as an instrument of government nor as an advocate for opposition interests.

By defending constitutional principles while simultaneously insisting on procedural fairness, INEC has reinforced public confidence in its independence.

The Commission’s conduct demonstrates that constitutionalism is not merely about achieving legally correct outcomes. It is equally about ensuring that those outcomes are reached through transparent, fair, and lawful processes.

Such an approach is particularly important as Nigeria prepares for future electoral contests, including the Ekiti and Osun governorship elections and the 2027 general elections.

Conclusion

The controversy surrounding the deregistration of ADC and other political parties presents an important constitutional lesson for Nigeria’s democracy.

While Section 225A clearly empowers INEC to deregister political parties that fail to meet prescribed electoral thresholds, the implementation of that power must remain subject to the principles of due process and fair hearing.

INEC’s decision under the leadership of Professor Joash Amupitan, SAN, to appeal aspects of the Federal High Court judgment on procedural grounds demonstrates institutional independence, legal sophistication, and unwavering commitment to constitutional governance.

In an era characterized by political tensions and competing narratives, Nigeria requires public institutions guided not by partisan calculations but by constitutional principles.

The actions of INEC in this matter provide a compelling illustration of constitutionalism in practice, where the supremacy of law, respect for due process, and institutional neutrality converge to strengthen democratic governance.

Ultimately, democracy is not preserved by political expediency. It is preserved by faithful adherence to the Constitution, respect for judicial processes, and the courage of institutions to act according to law rather than political pressure.

Email: bcharllykol@yahoo.com; 08035754442