Court’s reversal of NDC registration stirs anxiety ahead 2027 elections

…Legal practitioners divided over the decision

The decision of the Federal High Court in Lokoja, Kogi State, to set aside its earlier judgement directing the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to register the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) has ignited fresh legal controversy, with senior lawyers sharply divided over whether the ruling represents a legitimate exercise of judicial authority or a troubling precedent capable of undermining Nigeria’s democracy ahead of the 2027 general election.

Justice Dashen, on Friday, vacated the court’s December 10, 2025 judgement compelling INEC to register the NDC after ruling that the earlier decision affected the rights of the Peace Movement Party (PMP), which claimed ownership of the logo relied upon by the NDC but was not joined as a party in the original suit.

The ruling followed an application by the PMP, which argued that the NDC’s proposed logo was substantially similar to its own emblem and that it was denied the opportunity to defend its interest before the court granted the registration order.

The development has reopened debate over the extent of a trial court’s powers to revisit its own judgements, the legal rights of third parties, and the implications of the decision for political pluralism as preparations intensify for the 2027 elections.

However, Senator Seriake Dickson, the National Leader of the NDC, has urged the party’s candidates and supporters to remain calm, insisting there is no cause for panic despite the Federal High Court’s decision setting aside its earlier order directing the party’s registration.

Speaking on Channels Television’s Sunday Politics, Dickson said the party had already activated legal measures to challenge the ruling, maintaining that its participation in the 2027 general election remained intact.

“I want to thank all Nigerians for their support, solidarity and prayers. As a matter of fact, since Friday, thousands of Nigerians have been flocking to our website to register. They now know more about our party, they sympathise with our party and our candidates, and they are buying into our vision. I sincerely thank them for their support and prayers,” he said.

Dickson stressed that the court’s decision did not amount to the deregistration of the NDC and had no effect on the validity of candidates already produced by the party through duly conducted primaries.

“To be clear, the NDC has not been deregistered. The NDC validly nominated candidates for all elective offices through primaries monitored nationwide by INEC—from the State Houses of Assembly to the House of Representatives, the Senate, governorship positions and our presidential candidate, who has also nominated a running mate. I am equally a senatorial candidate of the party,” he stated.

According to him, all the party’s nominations were conducted within the timetable prescribed by INEC and in full compliance with the Electoral Act.

“I want to assure all our candidates and members that those nominations remain valid. Under Nigerian law, candidates emerge through party primaries; submission of their names to INEC is merely an administrative process.

“The NDC remains a political party. Even the court did not order its deregistration, and no legal step has been taken to that effect,” Dickson added.

Also reacting to the development, Peter Obi, the NDC presidential candidate described the judgement as a temporary legal setback, insisting that it would not derail the party’s preparations for the 2027 general election.

He maintained that the ruling was subject to appeal and expressed confidence that the judiciary would ultimately uphold justice.

Obi said the NDC remained firmly committed to pursuing all available legal remedies, stressing that the court’s decision did not amount to the end of the party’s political journey.

He assured supporters that the leadership was already taking the necessary legal steps to challenge the judgment and urged members not to lose faith in the democratic process.

Similarly, Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso, the vice- presidential candidate of the NDC, on Sunday held a strategic meeting with Dickson, at the former Bayelsa State governor’s residence in Abuja as part of consultations aimed at strengthening the party despite the legal setback.

In a post on his verified X account, Kwankwaso said the meeting centred on consolidating the party’s structures and reinforcing its preparedness for the 2027 elections.

“Today, I paid a courtesy visit to the National Leader of our party, the NDC, His Excellency Seriake Dickson, at his residence in Abuja. The engagement forms part of our ongoing efforts to strengthen the party’s unity, resilience and strategic readiness as we prepare for the 2027 general elections,” he wrote.

Expressing confidence in the judiciary, Kwankwaso insisted that the court ruling would not derail the aspirations of the party or its supporters.

“As true democrats, we remain committed to the rule of law and have absolute confidence in the judicial process. No temporary setback can weaken the spirit of a movement built on hope, justice, equity and the collective aspirations of the Nigerian people.

“I urge all party members, supporters and well-meaning Nigerians to stay calm, resolute and focused on our shared mission. Together, we will rise above every challenge. Nigeria will be okay,” he added.

Also confirming the meeting, Dickson, in a statement posted on his official Facebook page, said both leaders reviewed developments within the party and reaffirmed their commitment to preserving Nigeria’s multi-party democracy.

Legal practitioners divided over the decision

Moses Ebute, former Chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Abuja Branch, who is a member of the legal team defending the application, argued that the court acted within established legal principles.

According to him, Nigerian law recognises limited circumstances under which a court may set aside its own judgement, including where there is lack of jurisdiction, fraud, suppression or misrepresentation of material facts, or where a party was denied fair hearing.

“The complaint before the court concerns ownership of the logo. If another political association establishes that the logo belongs to it, then the court is entitled to hear every affected party before making a binding decision,” Ebute said.

He maintained that the court’s decision does not amount to deregistration of the NDC but merely reopens the matter for proper adjudication after all interested parties have been heard.

Drawing an analogy with a property dispute, Ebute explained that courts are empowered to revisit earlier decisions where it later becomes apparent that an interested party was excluded because material facts were not disclosed.

“The issue now is simply to determine who owns the disputed logo. That is what the court will decide,” he added. Ebute also dismissed suggestions that the judgement was part of a broader attempt to weaken opposition parties.

“If a political association adopts a logo that another party claims belongs to it, that raises a legal dispute. It should not automatically be interpreted as an assault on democracy,” he said.

However, Realwan Okpanachi, a legal practitioner and member of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) legal team, disagreed, insisting that the decision raises fundamental questions about the finality of court judgements.

According to him, the original proceedings were between the NDC promoters and INEC, while the Peace Movement Party was never a party to the suit.

“In our jurisprudence, once a court delivers judgement, it becomes functus officio. A person who was not a party to the proceedings ordinarily cannot return to the same court asking it to set aside its own judgement,” he argued.

Okpanachi maintained that the proper legal remedy available to the PMP was to seek leave to appeal as an interested party rather than asking the trial court to reopen the matter.

“The recognised exceptions are narrow and include fraud, lack of jurisdiction and failure of service. Outside those exceptions, allowing courts to revisit concluded cases would undermine the principle of finality in litigation,” he said.

He warned that frequent judicial reversals could weaken public confidence in the justice system.
“If courts begin reopening concluded matters at the instance of non-parties, certainty in the administration of justice will suffer.

“At a time when opposition parties are already battling internal crises, the judiciary must be seen as strengthening democracy rather than becoming another source of anxiety,” he added.

Also, Solomon Apenja, Abuja-based legal practitioner, described the dispute as a difficult legal contest with constitutional implications extending beyond the parties before the court.

While acknowledging that courts possess limited powers to set aside their own judgments where fraud, concealment or material misrepresentation is established, Apenja questioned whether allegations relating to similarities in party logos were sufficient to justify reopening the proceedings.

“That is the central legal question. Many lawyers agree the court has exceptional powers, but they differ on whether those powers were properly exercised in this instance,” Apenja said.

He observed that the ruling came amid growing judicial disputes involving opposition political parties, a development that could affect public confidence in democratic institutions.

“When legal disputes begin to determine whether political parties can even exist, rather than merely resolving internal disagreements, Nigerians are naturally concerned about the robustness of democratic competition,” he said.

Apenja warned that public trust in the judiciary remains one of the pillars sustaining constitutional democracy.

“If confidence in the courts diminishes, the consequences will extend beyond the legal profession and could weaken faith in the democratic process itself,” he added.