The African Democratic Congress has declared war on what it calls "judicial rascality" after a federal high court in Abuja ordered its deregistration. The party accused Justice Peter Lifu of disregarding a Court of Appeal stay order and bowing to political pressure from the ruling All Progressives Congress. A petition to the National Judicial Council is already drafted.
The court ruling came on June 15, 2026. Justice Lifu ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission to deregister the ADC alongside four other parties: Action Peoples Party, Action Alliance, Accord Party, and Zenith Labour Party. The grounds cited were failure to meet constitutional electoral performance thresholds during the 2023 general election and subsequent by-elections. INEC, however, had filed a counter-affidavit in May stating the ADC had not violated any registration requirements. The electoral body insisted deregistration must be based on constitutional grounds, not political sentiment.
Bolaji Abdullahi, ADC national publicity secretary, issued a blistering statement. He said the judge ignored a subsisting Court of Appeal order issued on May 22, 2026, directing a stay of proceedings. Abdullahi described the judge’s conduct as flagrant contempt of a superior court. He linked the ruling to a broader APC strategy to eliminate opposition ahead of the 2027 elections. The ADC had just concluded its primary elections and was preparing to field candidates, including a presidential ticket with former Rivers State Governor Rotimi Amaechi as running mate to Atiku Abubakar.
The timing of the judgment raises systemic questions about judicial independence. The suit was filed by the National Forum of Former Legislators, a group with alleged ties to the Presidency. The ADC questioned the involvement of the Attorney-General of the Federation, who joined the case as a plaintiff. This move is unusual because the AGF typically represents the federal government in legal matters, not private litigants. The ADC sees this as evidence of executive overreach into judicial processes.
Beyond the immediate legal battle, the deregistration threat exposes a structural flaw in Nigeria’s electoral framework. The 1999 Constitution empowers INEC to register and deregister parties based on performance thresholds. However, these thresholds have never been clearly defined in law. INEC’s affidavit in this case confirms the absence of a legal basis for deregistration. This ambiguity allows political actors to weaponize the judiciary against opponents. The ADC’s case is not isolated; smaller parties have faced similar threats since 2011, when INEC first attempted mass deregistration.
The ADC’s petition to the NJC will focus on judicial conduct rather than the merits of the case. The party alleges Justice Lifu’s disregard for the Court of Appeal order undermines public trust in the judiciary. This is not the first time a federal high court judge has been accused of overreach. In 2023, Justice Inyang Ekwo faced similar allegations after delivering a controversial judgment on electoral disputes. The NJC has historically been slow to act on such complaints, often issuing mild reprimands rather than sanctions. The ADC’s move is a calculated gamble to pressure the council into taking a stronger stance.
The broader democratic implications are severe. Nigeria’s multi-party system is already fragile. The APC and Peoples Democratic Party dominate the political space, leaving little room for smaller parties. Deregistration would eliminate the ADC’s presidential ticket and hundreds of candidates across national and state assemblies. This reduces voter choices and concentrates power in the hands of the ruling elite. The ADC’s warning of potential anarchy is not hyperbole; similar judicial interventions in Kenya and Zimbabwe have triggered violent protests and constitutional crises.
The ADC’s strategy combines legal challenges with public mobilization. The party has called on democratic stakeholders, including civil society groups and international observers, to defend its members’ rights. It has also urged supporters to remain calm but vigilant. The statement concluded with a defiant pledge: "Whatever it takes, the ADC will be on the ballot so long as the 2027 election is to hold." This rhetoric mirrors the defiance of opposition parties in other African democracies facing similar crackdowns. The party’s survival now hinges on whether the NJC will act decisively or allow the judiciary to become a tool of political repression.
One overlooked angle is the economic cost of this legal battle. The ADC has spent millions of naira on primary elections, candidate nomination forms, and legal fees. Deregistration would render these investments worthless. The party’s financial backers, including former governors and business tycoons, may reconsider future funding if the judiciary is perceived as unreliable. This could further weaken opposition parties, creating a vicious cycle of financial and political marginalization. The ruling party, meanwhile, faces no such constraints, as state resources are often diverted to fund its activities.
