By Lemmy Ughegbe, Ph.D
A legal battle currently before the Federal High Court in Abuja may significantly shape Nigeria’s democratic landscape ahead of the 2027 general elections. At the centre of the controversy is the interpretation and possible enforcement of Section 225A of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), a provision empowering the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister political parties that fail to satisfy prescribed constitutional thresholds.
Under Section 225A, INEC is empowered to deregister political parties that breach registration requirements, fail to secure at least 25 per cent of votes in one state during a presidential election, fail to win a seat in the National Assembly or State House of Assembly elections, or otherwise fail to satisfy constitutional electoral benchmarks necessary for continued recognition as political parties.
What initially appeared like a routine constitutional dispute has gradually evolved into a major national conversation because of its implications for opposition politics, democratic inclusion, coalition building and the future of Nigeria’s multi party system.
The suit, instituted by the Incorporated Trustees of National Forum of Former Legislators, seeks the deregistration of certain political parties on grounds that they allegedly failed to meet constitutional electoral requirements. The action asks the court to compel INEC to enforce Section 225A by removing such parties from the register of recognised political parties.
Listed as defendants are INEC, the Attorney General of the Federation, African Democratic Congress, Action Alliance, Action Peoples Party, Accord and the Zenith Labour Party.
The plaintiff essentially argues that the affected political parties failed to satisfy constitutional electoral thresholds required for their continued recognition under Nigeria’s constitutional framework.
The matter gained wider national attention after reports emerged that the Attorney General of the Federation, despite being a defendant in the matter, filed processes interpreted as substantially supportive of the constitutional arguments advanced by the plaintiff.
Expectedly, reactions have followed from different political and legal quarters.
However, beyond the political noise surrounding the matter, many observers believe the Attorney General deserves commendation rather than attacks for approaching the issue from the standpoint of constitutional duty.
Supporters of the AGF insist that as the nation’s Chief Law Officer and custodian of the Constitution, the Attorney General possesses both the constitutional authority and institutional obligation to take positions on matters involving constitutional interpretation, public interest and enforcement of extant laws.
According to them, difficult constitutional questions cannot suddenly become untouchable merely because they generate political discomfort.
This perhaps explains why many civil society voices have criticised comments reportedly made by Zenith Labour Party National Chairman, Dan Nwanyanwu, alleging that the Attorney General “cooked up” the suit despite being a defendant in the matter.
Critics describe those remarks as reckless, defamatory and diversionary.
They argue that rather than resorting to emotional accusations and sensationalism, parties affected by the litigation should focus on preparing and presenting strong constitutional arguments before the court.
To them, constitutional disputes are resolved through judicial interpretation and legal reasoning, not through public attacks against institutions or office holders.
Supporters of the suit maintain that the issue itself is fundamentally about constitutional supremacy and institutional credibility. Their argument is straightforward. Once the Constitution prescribes conditions for the continued existence of political parties, INEC possesses not merely the power but the obligation to enforce such provisions.
Those who support strict enforcement argue that the proliferation of weak and inactive political parties has become a burden on Nigeria’s electoral process. They point to overcrowded ballot papers, increasing election management costs and growing voter confusion during elections.
To them, many political parties exist only as legal entities without visible grassroots structures, ideological identity or meaningful electoral participation.
Supporters of deregistration also argue that the framers of the Constitution deliberately inserted Section 225A to discourage the endless multiplication of politically inactive parties.
Some legal analysts further maintain that constitutional provisions imposing obligations on public institutions are ordinarily intended to be enforced rather than selectively ignored.
There is also a broader administrative concern. Elections in Nigeria are already enormously expensive. Critics of unchecked party proliferation argue that sustaining dozens of electorally inactive parties unnecessarily increases logistical burdens, administrative complexity and public expenditure.
Yet, on the other side of the debate are equally serious arguments rooted in democratic pluralism, political inclusion and freedom of association.
Opponents of deregistration fear that strict enforcement of Section 225A, particularly within a fragile and still evolving democracy like Nigeria’s, could significantly narrow democratic space and further consolidate political power in the hands of dominant parties.
For them, democracy thrives not merely through electoral victories but through the protection of political diversity and alternative voices.
They argue that many successful political movements across the world once began as fringe platforms before eventually gaining national relevance.
According to this school of thought, political parties should not necessarily be judged only by immediate electoral performance, especially within political environments already shaped heavily by incumbency advantages and financial influence.
Some also fear that deregistration powers could eventually become instruments of political intimidation or selective enforcement.
Beyond politics, however, the real challenge before the court is constitutional balancing.
At the heart of the controversy lies a deeper constitutional question. Should compliance with the Constitution be enforced sentimentally or strictly according to the provisions of the law?
Supporters of the suit insist that constitutional provisions cannot become optional merely because enforcement generates political anxiety or emotional resistance. According to them, the Constitution is not a symbolic document but the supreme legal framework binding on institutions, political actors and citizens alike.
Others however urge caution, arguing that constitutional interpretation must also take account of democratic realities and the dangers of shrinking political inclusion within an already fragile democratic environment.
That constitutional tension now sits squarely before the judiciary.
Can constitutional provisions relating to deregistration be enforced strictly without undermining democratic plurality?
Can Nigeria preserve political inclusion while maintaining electoral seriousness and administrative efficiency?
These are the difficult constitutional questions now awaiting judicial determination.
With political realignments already intensifying ahead of 2027, the outcome of the suit could reshape coalition calculations, opposition strategies and the broader electoral landscape.
If the court adopts a strict interpretation of Section 225A, several parties could face deregistration, forcing mergers, alliances and political realignments.
If however the court leans towards broader political inclusion, Nigeria may continue operating one of the world’s most expansive multi party systems despite concerns over electoral efficiency.
Either way, the implications will be profound.
Ultimately, the judiciary must resist both political pressure and emotional populism.
Its duty is not to protect political convenience or partisan interests but to interpret the Constitution faithfully.
The case therefore is not merely about deregistration.
It is about the kind of democracy Nigeria wishes to build and whether constitutional provisions should remain binding obligations or become decorative texts ignored whenever enforcement becomes politically inconvenient.
Dr Lemmy Ughegbe, FIMC, CMCEmail: lemmyughegbeofficial@gmail.comWhatsApp ONLY: +2348069726645
