By joshua WHEN JUDICIAL ORDERS THREATEN DEMOCRATIC STABILITY: A CAUTION TO THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT AND INEC
By Christopher Sunday
Democracy survives not merely through elections, but through the consistent protection of constitutional order, institutional restraint and judicial responsibility. Any action capable of undermining the existence of legally recognized political parties must therefore be approached with the highest degree of caution, legal scrutiny and constitutional fidelity.
The recent judgment reportedly delivered by Justice Lifu of the Federal High Court, Abuja, ordering the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to de-register the African Democratic Congress (ADC) and other political parties, has triggered serious constitutional, political and jurisprudential concerns across the country.
At the center of this controversy are critical questions begging for urgent answers.
First, can a political party which INEC itself certified as meeting constitutional and statutory requirements suddenly be declared non-compliant under Section 225A of the Constitution without clear and overwhelming legal justification?
Political parties do not emerge by accident. They undergo rigorous constitutional scrutiny before registration. INEC, as the constitutionally empowered electoral body, verifies compliance with membership spread, organizational structure, national outlook and operational requirements before granting recognition. If the same institution that certified compliance now proceeds to implement a judicial order declaring such parties non-compliant, it risks creating dangerous contradictions within the democratic process.
Secondly, can individuals or entities without demonstrable legal injury or locus standi institute proceedings capable of extinguishing the legal existence of a political party?
The doctrine of locus standi remains a foundational principle of constitutional litigation. Courts are expected to avoid entertaining speculative or politically motivated suits filed by persons who have neither suffered legal injury nor shown direct legal consequences arising from the existence of the political parties in question. The judiciary must remain vigilant against becoming an arena for political elimination through procedural manipulation.
Thirdly, can a lower court proceed to deliver judgment in a matter where there are reports that the Court of Appeal had ordered a stay of further proceedings pending the determination of an appeal?
The hierarchy of courts is not ceremonial. It is a constitutional safeguard against judicial disorder. Once an appellate court intervenes and grants a stay, every lower court is expected to exercise restraint in obedience to judicial hierarchy and the rule of law. Any contrary action creates institutional confusion capable of weakening public confidence in the judiciary itself.
Furthermore, can a political party that has complied with Section 77 of the Electoral Act 2022 by submitting its register of members to INEC and conducting lawful congresses and primaries thereafter still be subjected to de-registration under questionable procedural circumstances?
This is particularly important because political parties are not private associations existing in isolation. They are constitutional vehicles through which citizens exercise political participation. Arbitrary or politically induced de-registration threatens not only parties, but also millions of Nigerians whose democratic choices are tied to those platforms.
The implications of implementing such a judgment without careful constitutional examination are enormous.
First, it could destabilize Nigeria’s multi-party democracy and dangerously narrow political participation. Democracy thrives on plurality, opposition and alternative voices. Any precedent suggesting that political parties can be extinguished through controversial judicial proceedings may create fear and uncertainty across the political space.
Second, it risks damaging the credibility and neutrality of INEC. The electoral body must avoid actions capable of portraying it as complicit in political engineering or selective enforcement of constitutional provisions. INEC must remember that public trust is its greatest institutional asset.
Third, the judiciary itself must guard against perceptions of judicial overreach. Courts derive moral authority not from coercion, but from public confidence in their fairness, independence and fidelity to constitutional principles. Orders capable of reshaping the democratic landscape must therefore pass the strictest tests of legality, procedural fairness and constitutional consistency.
Nigeria’s democracy has endured difficult moments in the past. What sustains democratic societies is not merely the existence of institutions, but the discipline with which those institutions exercise power.
The Federal High Court must therefore exercise extreme caution in matters touching on the existence of political parties, while INEC must ensure that every action taken remains firmly rooted in constitutionalism, due process and democratic responsibility.
At a time when citizens are demanding stronger democratic institutions, transparency and political inclusion, any attempt, direct or indirect, to weaken the multi-party system through controversial judicial mechanisms may carry consequences far beyond the courtroom.
The preservation of democracy requires restraint from both the Bench and electoral institutions. History has repeatedly shown that democracies are rarely destroyed overnight. They are weakened gradually whenever institutions abandon constitutional caution for expediency.
Nigeria must not travel that path.