Attorney General backs court move to strike ADC, Accord, three other parties off INEC register
By: Abudu Olalekan
A surprise legal move sparks debate as top lawyer urges judges to erase ADC, Accord, and three more parties from ballot access. Ruling might shift power lines across Nigeria just before 2027 votes take center stage.
Right now, a court case in Abuja holds everything together. This one involves the Attorney General supporting an effort – not through force but by legal push – to have five parties erased from INEC’s official roster. When groups fall short of what the constitution demands, keeping them listed makes little sense. Clear logic drives it forward. The core idea stands firm: stay up to code or step off.
Should INEC keep backing parties that don’t meet basic rules, it might break its own constitutional role, court papers suggest. The Attorney General sees party status not as automatic, but tied to clear obligations. Meeting those standards isn’t optional – according to him, they hold real weight. What matters here is following through on set terms, nothing more.
Labeled FHC/ABJ/CS/2637/2026, the legal filing appeared at the Federal High Court’s Abuja Judicial Division. Initiated by the Incorporated Trustees of the National Forum of Former Legislators, it pulled in several names. INEC stands named first among those challenged; close behind comes the Attorney General of the Federation. Included too – though less expected – are five party groups: African Democratic Congress, Action Alliance, Action Peoples Party, Accord Party, and Zenith Labour Party.
At stake lies a question about INEC’s duty under the Constitution. Whether it must remove parties that fall short of vote benchmarks comes down to interpretation. Section 225A of the 1999 charter sets those standards, later echoed in law. The 2022 Electoral Act repeats them. So do internal agency rules. That repetition strengthens their weight. Still, enforcement isn’t automatic just because texts align. Courts often weigh intent alongside wording. Precedent matters too, though not always predictably. What counts here is how strictly obligation binds the commission. Silence in practice might suggest discretion. Yet clarity in statute could override habit. This case pushes on where duty begins when results dip below minimums. Not every rule demands rigid execution. But constitutional clauses carry heavier force. Performance thresholds exist for stability, not trivia. Their purpose shapes how mandates are viewed. Interpretation bends toward structure, not whimsy.
It begins with failure – those groups just never hit the marks required to stay registered, claim the people bringing the case. Meeting targets isn’t optional; law demands it. One path: grab twenty-five percent of votes in any state come presidential voting time. Another way: land even a single elected role, whether federal, regional, or citywide. Missing both? That counts as falling short. Rules don’t bend much here. Each attempt matters, every result gets checked. Not close enough means status slips away. What stands now may not last. Proof piles up when promises go unmet. Numbers tell part. Outcomes show the rest.
That lawsuit claims the groups involved lost badly during both the 2023 national vote and later local races. Despite coming up empty at major government tiers, INEC continues listing them as official parties. In their view, this status makes no sense anymore. What’s more, those bringing the case believe recognition ought to depend on actual electoral success.
It’s against the law, they say, keeping those groups listed – hurts how fairly Nigeria runs its votes. Filed with the court papers, a statement from the group’s leader, Igbokwe Raphael Nnanna, called their ongoing approval a breach of rules, not allowed by constitution, out of line with election laws across the nation.
It’s a wide request. Extremely wide. Plaintiffs expect the court to state clearly: INEC must remove parties falling short of constitutional benchmarks. Should the commission hesitate, they seek an instruction – action needed well ahead of serious planning for 2027 polls.
Not finished yet. This legal move pushes further, demanding courts block those involved from joining upcoming national votes or doing campaign events like rallies, meetings, or candidate selections. Beyond this, the people bringing the case expect court orders to stop INEC from acknowledging these groups officially until every rule in the constitution is followed completely.
One key thing the plaintiffs point to is just a single word: “shall.” Because the Constitution says “shall,” their legal team claims INEC cannot choose what to do. When a party misses the mark, action follows – no waiting. No room for delay. It happens, full stop. Not later. Not if someone decides it’s time. Happens every time, no exceptions.
Starting off, their document leans on laws passed by parliament along with past court rulings to make a point. Electoral results, they say, offer a clear measure – something fixed and fair. This standard matters greatly, they suggest near the end, when thinking about how politics in Nigeria must stay under control. Openness counts too. So does answering for actions taken. These ideas trail through the lines without fanfare.
Attorney General supports plaintiff
Even though named as a defendant, the Attorney General has sided with the plaintiff, guided by his constitutional role. Through a filing under Order 15 Rule 1 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019, his office stressed its obligation to protect the Constitution – this covers enforcing the Electoral Act and related election laws.
What stands out goes beyond just this case. Not only does the Attorney General step in when legal issues arise, but he works ahead of trouble too. Instead of waiting for violations to take hold, he checks how rules are applied early on. This move ties back to broader concerns about fairness. Safeguarding trust in government matters just as much as upholding rulings. Following constitutional duties isn’t optional – it shapes how power stays accountable.
The paper shows the Attorney General claimed people plus organizations can oppose broken rules, particularly when voting is involved. To back this kind of case lines up with his job running national laws while standing up for public freedoms.
The filing also points to the practical consequences of keeping underperforming parties on the register. It argues that this creates unnecessary ballot congestion, raises the cost of election management, and undermines the intention behind Section 225A, which gives INEC the power to deregister parties that fail to perform.
The plaintiffs are equally firm on that point. They say INEC has no residual discretion to retain parties that plainly do not satisfy the constitutional criteria. If the commission refuses to act, they argue, that failure amounts to an ongoing breach of constitutional duty—one that can properly be challenged through public interest litigation, as they have now done.
The forum also says it has the legal standing to bring the suit. Since its members are former legislators who were directly involved in making and overseeing Nigeria’s constitutional and electoral framework, it argues that it has a legitimate interest in ensuring those laws are followed.
The Attorney General further stressed the importance of access to justice, saying support from public institutions can help close the gap for citizens trying to enforce constitutional rights. He added that real collaboration between government bodies and civic actors is important if the country wants stronger accountability, better legal awareness, and deeper democratic participation.
The Attorney General is being represented in the case by a legal team led by Prof. J. O. Olatoke, SAN, alongside O. J. David, U. O. Olufadi, D. O. Bamidele, V. D. Maiye, Waheed Abdulraheem, and A. K. Abdulmumin, all of whom signed the filing before the Federal High Court in Abuja.
The case is already attracting attention in both legal and political circles, and for good reason. If the court grants the request and compels INEC to act, the ruling could have major consequences for Nigeria’s party system well before the next election cycle begins.
