The suit is fundamentally defective and amounts to a non sequitur, not only because its core reliefs have no basis in constitutional law, but also because the claimant lacks locus standi, making the entire action incompetent ab initio. The 1999 Constitution (as altered) confers the power of party deregistration exclusively on INEC, acting within the limits of Section 225A. Therefore, a private litigant cannot usurp a constitutional power reserved for an independent constitutional body. In A-G Kaduna State v. Hassan (1985) and similar authorities, the courts consistently held that a party without demonstrable special interest or injury lacks the standing to initiate such an action. The present claimant has shown no cognizable injury; hence the suit is liable to be struck out for want of locus standi.
More importantly, the factual basis of the claim collapses when examined against the express constitutional thresholds. Under Section 225A, there are three broad and disjunctive conditions for deregistration:
- Failure to win at least one elective seat in a National Assembly, State Assembly, Local Government Chairmanship, or Councillorship election;
- Failure to maintain functional offices in the FCT and at least two-thirds of the states of the Federation; and
- Failure to secure at least 25% of votes in at least one State in a Presidential election, or in at least one Local Government Area in a Governorship election, in addition to routine administrative obligations such as filing audited financial reports and compliance with registration requirements.
The operative principle—which the Supreme Court emphatically restated in National Unity Party v. INEC (2021) – is that these requirements are not cumulative. Compliance with any one of the thresholds is sufficient to sustain the legal existence of a political party. The most crucial and determinative of these thresholds is the winning of at least one elective seat, because it serves as the clearest empirical indicator of popular support.
On this decisive constitutional benchmark, the African Democratic Congress (ADC) clearly satisfies the requirement. The party secured two seats in the 2023 National and State Assembly elections, thereby meeting the exact standard contemplated by Section 225A(1). Additionally, the subsequent defection of Senator Ireti Kingibe to the ADC further strengthens the party’s representation in the National Assembly, reinforcing—not diminishing—its constitutional viability. Once a party wins a seat, regardless of whether by election or subsequent constitutionally valid defection, the constitutional threshold is met.
The ADC also maintains functional party structures across the federation and continues to comply with INEC’s administrative regulations, satisfying the other thresholds. Indeed, these facts were extensively scrutinised during the coalition’s due diligence process, confirming the party’s strong legal footing.
Accordingly, the suit is vexatious, frivolous, and maliciously contrived, lacking both constitutional basis and factual merit. It deserves outright dismissal for lack of locus standi, failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action, and for being completely inconsistent with the clear provisions of Section 225A of the Constitution.
Alex Ter Adum, Ph.D –
DDG THE NARRATIVE FORCE
