A fresh legal crisis is stimming within Nigeria’s political space as a group of former legislators has approached the Federal High Court in Abuja, seeking a sweeping order to compel the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister several political parties, including the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Action Peoples Party (APP), Accord, Action Alliance (AA), and Zenith Labour Party (ZLP).
The suit, filed by the National Forum of Former Legislators, is marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2637/2026 and was instituted on April 23, with INEC and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) listed as first and second defendants.
In what appears to be a bold push to reshape Nigeria’s political landscape, the plaintiffs argued that the affected parties failed to meet the constitutional requirements necessary to retain their registration.
They insisted that INEC has “no residual discretion to retain the registration of political parties that have clearly failed to satisfy the minimum threshold prescribed under Section 225A of the Constitution,” warning that allowing such parties to remain undermines the integrity of the electoral system.
The legal action targets ADC as the third defendant, while AA, APP, Accord, and ZLP are listed as fourth to seventh defendants.
The ex-lawmakers further declared that “the continued existence of non-performing political parties will inflate the ballots, burden public funds, complicate election administration and undermine the constitutional intention behind Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution (as amended)”.
Describing the case as a “public interest litigation,” the plaintiffs said the move is aimed at enforcing accountability and ensuring strict compliance with constitutional provisions governing political parties.
They also warned that “any failure or refusal of the 1st Defendant to deregister the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Defendants constitutes a continuing breach of constitutional duty, capable of being challenged by way of public interest litigation”.
The group stressed that “the right to associate as a political party under the Constitution is not absolute,” insisting that parties must meet laid-down standards to remain legally recognised.
Turning the spotlight on the AGF, the plaintiffs argued that the office holder, given his dual role, must act in the interest of justice, stating that the AGF having “dual role as both an advocate for the state and defender of citizen rights must act in public interest in supporting the Plaintiff’s case for the promotion of justice and ensure that laws are interpreted and applied correctly”.
They added that the AGF “is enjoined to collaborate with other government agencies and citizens to ensure that laws are effectively enforced,” maintaining that backing the suit aligns with constitutional responsibilities.
Pushing further, the plaintiffs stated that “by backing the Plaintiff herein, the 2nd Defendant contributes to the establishment of legal precedent that reinforces the supremacy of the Constitution, thereby fostering a culture of accountability and respect for the law”.
As of the time of filing this report, no date has been fixed for the hearing of the case, but the suit is already generating buzz, with political observers warning that a favourable ruling could trigger a major shake-up ahead of future elections.
