*Faults ZLP chair’s alleged defamatory remarks on AGF
*Wants Section 225 (A) of the Constitution protected
By Our Reporter
A democracy advocacy group, Coalition of Civil Society Groups for Peace, Security, Good Governance, Equity and Justice, has urged the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, to give accelerated hearing to the suit seeking judicial interpretation on the continued existence and registration of certain alleged redundant political parties.
The group described the suit as having weighty constitutional and democratic implications ahead of the 2027 general elections. The group’s position was contained in a statement signed by its national coordinator, James Okoronkwo.
The suit, instituted by the Incorporated Trustees of National Forum of Former Legislators, seeks constitutional interpretation and enforcement of Section 225 (A) of the 1999 Constitution on the continued existence of some political parties alleged to have fallen short of constitutional electoral threshold.
Parties listed as defendants in the matter are the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the Attorney General of the Federation, African Democratic Congress (ADC), Action Alliance (AA), Action Peoples Party (APP), Accord, and Zenith Labour Party (ZLP).
The coalition acclaimed the position of the Attorney General of the Federation on the matter as constitutionally important, and lauded him for “appreciating the enormous responsibilities attached to his office as the nation’s Chief Law Officer and custodian of the 1999 Constitution.”
According to the coalition, the position adopted by the Attorney General “underscores the supremacy of constitutional fidelity over political expediency and partisan sentiment.”
The coalition chided the National Chairman of the Zenith Labour Party, Dan Nwanyanwu, for making what it described as “reckless, baseless and defamatory allegations” against the Attorney General of the Federation following claims that the AGF allegedly “manufactured” the suit despite being a defendant in the matter currently before the court.
The organisation described the allegations as “unfortunate, irresponsible and potentially damaging to public confidence in democratic institutions and the administration of justice.”
Stated the group, “It is extremely reckless for anyone to accuse the Attorney General of manipulation or conspiracy without credible evidence merely because he adopted a constitutional position on an issue before the court.
“Public conversations around constitutional matters must not degenerate into wild accusations, sensationalism and deliberate misinformation,” the coalition stated.
The coalition maintained that the Attorney General of the Federation, by virtue of his office as Chief Law Officer of the Federation and custodian of the Constitution, possesses both the constitutional authority and institutional obligation to take positions on issues involving constitutional interpretation, public interest and the enforcement of extant laws.
“There is absolutely nothing improper about the Attorney General responding to a matter in which he is a party before a competent court of law. Resorting to defamatory insinuations instead of canvassing legal arguments weakens democratic culture and undermines responsible civic engagement,” the coalition added.
According to the coalition, the suit itself raises serious constitutional questions touching on electoral integrity, constitutional supremacy, democratic accountability and the obligations imposed on public institutions by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
The coalition observed that Section 225A of the Constitution, which stipulates conditions for the deregistration of political parties, cannot be treated as a mere symbolic constitutional provision existing only on paper without practical implementation.
“Constitutional provisions are not inserted into the Constitution for cosmetic effect. They impose binding obligations meant to regulate institutional conduct and sustain democratic order. Section 225A cannot be selectively enforced depending on political convenience or emotional sentiments,” the coalition stated.
The organisation argued that the constitutional thresholds for the continued existence of political parties were deliberately introduced to discourage the endless proliferation of politically inactive parties lacking measurable electoral relevance or meaningful democratic participation.
The coalition regretted that the growing number of political parties with negligible electoral impact are complicating election administration, increase public expenditure, overcrowd ballot papers and create unnecessary voter confusion during elections.
While acknowledging that democracy thrives on inclusion, plurality and freedom of political association, the coalition maintained that democratic freedoms must still operate within constitutional boundaries and extant electoral laws.
“It is important for Nigerians to appreciate that the constitutional debate surrounding this suit should not automatically be interpreted as hostility towards democracy or opposition politics. Democracies across the world establish minimum performance thresholds for political parties in order to guarantee electoral seriousness, institutional credibility and administrative efficiency,” the coalition said.
The coalition therefore urged the Federal High Court to accord urgent and accelerated attention to the matter in view of its potential implications for Nigeria’s electoral future, democratic stability and political environment ahead of 2027.
“The judiciary now has a rare opportunity to provide constitutional clarity on an issue capable of shaping the future of Nigeria’s democratic landscape. Whatever decision ultimately emerges from the court must strengthen constitutionalism, deepen public trust in democratic institutions and reaffirm the principle that no provision of the Constitution is redundant,” the statement added.
