Deregistration of Political Parties Under Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria.
By: Misbau Alamu Lateef, Ph.D, SFHE
Today’s judgment by Hon. Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court, Abuja, which ordered the deregistration of several opposition political parties including the African Democratic Congress (ADC), has ignited a predictable firestorm of political commentary. Much of this commentary, however, has missed the critical legal and constitutional foundations upon which this decision rests. It is important to state from the outset that the Attorney General of the Federation, a political appointee of the ruling APC, did not initiate these proceedings. He was joined as a respondent in the suit brought by the applicants precisely because of the office he holds, not because he sought out this litigation. This distinction matters because it dispels the immediate assumption of executive orchestration.
Now, the constitutional authority for deregistration of political parties in Nigeria is found in section 225A of the 1999 Constitution, a provision whose exact text deserves careful attention. It empowers the Independent National Electoral Commission (IINEC) to deregister a political party on specific grounds, including breach of registration requirements, failure to win at least twenty-five percent of votes cast in one state of the Federation in a presidential election, failure to win at least twenty-five percent of votes cast in one local government of a state in a governorship election, and critically, failure to win at least one ward in a chairmanship election, one seat in the National or State House of Assembly election, or one seat in a councillorship election. The provision is written in clear mandatory terms. It does not require a party to achieve national dominance. It requires only a minimal demonstration of electoral viability, a single legislative seat or a single ward victory, to remain on the register.
It is worth recalling the legislative history of this provision, not for political nostalgia but for contextual accuracy. The Fourth Alteration to the Constitution (No 9 Act, 2017), which introduced section 225A, was championed in the National Assembly by Senator Ike Ekweremadu, a senior member of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). It was a bipartisan reform aimed at sanitising the electoral space by pruning the unwieldy number of political parties, many of which existed only on paper or served as vehicles for a handful of individuals. Ekweremadu argued at the time that deregistering non-viable parties would strengthen democracy by ensuring that only parties with genuine grassroots support and electoral capacity remained on the ballot. The irony of the same provision now being deployed against parties that were once its political beneficiaries is not lost on observers, but irony is not a ground for setting aside constitutional text.
Meanwhile, the legal trajectory of this matter has been long and tortuous, culminating in a definitive resolution by the Supreme Court. The case of National Unity Party v. INEC (2021) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1799) 250 – SC/68/2020, was delivered by the apex court on May 7, 2021. In that judgment, the Supreme Court permanently resolved the legal battles that had arisen from conflicting decisions of the Court of Appeal. The background is instructive. On July 29, 2020, one panel of the Court of Appeal, in the NUP case, affirmed INEC’s power to deregister parties under section 225A. Just days later, on August 10, 2020, another panel of the same court, in a case brought by the Advanced Congress of Democrats and twenty-two other parties, issued a conflicting judgment setting aside deregistration on due process grounds. Faced with these contradictory rulings from the same appellate court, INEC properly approached the Supreme Court for a final and binding resolution. The Supreme Court, in a unanimous judgment delivered by Justice Chima Nweze, upheld the deregistration of the NUP and, by extension, affirmed the constitutional validity of INEC’s powers under section 225A. That judgment sealed the fate of over seventy political parties and established a clear precedent that now controls this area of law.
The timing of the current deregistration orders, coming as they do ahead of the Osun and Ekiti governorship elections (2026) and the general elections in 2027, will inevitably heighten suspicions and generate political tension. It would be naive to pretend otherwise. Opponents of the ruling party will inevitably frame this as a targeted attack designed to weaken opposition forces ahead of critical electoral contests. This suspicion is not unreasonable on its face, and the ruling party must accept that the optics of deregistration in an election season will always carry political baggage. But suspicion, however understandable or strong, must not be allowed to override constitutional reality. The law is the law, and the Constitution is supreme. If a political party has demonstrably failed to meet the minimal electoral thresholds set by section 225A, it is not persecution to say so. It is constitutional fidelity.
This deregistration process, viewed without partisan lenses, is a healthy pruning exercise for Nigeria’s democracy. A ballot paper crowded with dozens of non-viable parties does not enhance democratic choice; it confuses voters, inflates the cost of election administration, and creates opportunities for political manipulation. The existence of a political party ought to mean something. It ought to signify an organisation capable of mobilising voters, winning electoral contests, and providing genuine representation. The pruning of deadwood from the party register is not an attack on democracy; it is an act of democratic housekeeping. Separating the grain from the shafts leaves behind only what is valuable and usable.
For the candidates of the affected parties, the consequences are immediate and severe. A party that is deregistered ceases to exist as a legal entity for electoral purposes. Its candidates cannot validly be sponsored for any election, whether governorship, legislative, or local government. The nomination papers of such candidates, if already submitted, would become void. The votes cast for them would be wasted votes. This is not speculation; it is the direct legal consequence of deregistration under section 225A. For the upcoming Osun and Ekiti governorship elections in 2026, and for the 2027 general elections, this means that any candidate whose party falls within the scope of the current deregistration orders is effectively disqualified unless a higher court intervenes to stay the orders or overrule the decision. The urgency for those parties to seek appellate relief cannot be overstated.
Critics who argue that the provision is too strict or that its application at this moment is politically motivated must confront the text of the Constitution. There is no exception in section 225A for popular candidates, for parties that once had governors or senators who later decamped, or for political expediency. The provision asks a simple factual question: did the party, on its own sponsorship of candidates, win the prescribed minimum electoral victory? Decamped Governors or legislators were not elected under the banner of their new parties. Their electoral mandate belongs to the party that sponsored them at the time of the election, not the party they now call home. To suggest otherwise would be to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of party-sponsored elections under the Nigerian Constitution.
Finally, and this just for emphasis, while the timing of these deregistration orders will undoubtedly fuel political suspicion and opposition anger, the legal foundation upon which they rest is sound and has been affirmed by the Supreme Court. The judicial precedent (NUP case) on section 225A did run its course through the lower courts, the Court of Appeal, and ultimately the Supreme Court. The Constitution commands what it commands, and until it is amended, section 225A remains the law. Those who find themselves on the losing side of this constitutional equation are not victims of persecution; they are casualties of their own failure to meet a minimal standard of electoral performance. Democracy is not undermined by requiring parties to demonstrate that they can actually win something. Democracy is strengthened by it.
– Misbau Alamu Lateef, Ph.D, SFH
