Nigerian Court Sets March 24 Ruling on ADC and Accord Party Deregistration

The Federal High Court's decision to fix March 24 for judgment marks a critical juncture in Nigerian electoral jurisprudence and regulatory oversight. The suit, which targets the African Democratic Congress (ADC), the Accord Party, and several other minor parties, seeks their formal removal from the register of recognized political organizations. This move follows a period of heightened regulatory scrutiny by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and private litigants regarding the viability and constitutional compliance of smaller political entities in a crowded multi-party system.

Under Section 225A of the Nigerian Constitution, as introduced by the Fourth Alteration, the state maintains the power to deregister parties for specific failures in electoral performance. These criteria include failing to win at least one ward in a local government election, failing to win a seat in the National or State Assembly, or failing to secure at least 25% of the votes cast in one state during a Presidential election. This legal framework was tested extensively in 2020 when INEC deregistered 74 parties simultaneously. The subsequent litigation reached the Supreme Court, which eventually affirmed the commission's authority, establishing a rigorous precedent for party maintenance and administrative efficiency over broad political pluralism.

“

The suit, which targets the African Democratic Congress (ADC), the Accord Party, and several other minor parties, seeks their formal removal from the register of recognized political organizations.

For the ADC and Accord, the stakes of the upcoming March 24 ruling are existential. These parties have historically served as significant "third-force" alternatives to the dominant political powers in Nigeria. A deregistration ruling would not only strip them of their right to field candidates in future cycles but also trigger a complex liquidation of assets and a migration of political capital. From a RegTech and legal perspective, this case highlights the increasing reliance on judicial intervention to enforce administrative standards within the political ecosystem. It underscores the tension between the constitutional right to freedom of association and the state's interest in preventing ballot paper clutter and ensuring only serious, representative entities remain active.