A Federal High Court in Abuja has declared that the final decision on whether or not an association should be registered as a political party belongs solely to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
Justice James Omotosho, in a judgment, held that the right of an association to be registered as a political party is not an absolute right because INEC still retains the powers to register or deny such an association registration where it does not fulfill the requirements for registration.
Justice Omotosho noted that although the Constitution allows for the formation of political parties, it provides for requirements, as contained in Section 222, which must be met for any association to be so registered.
The judge further held that even though the constitutional requirements for registering an association as a political party are quite exhaustive, INEC “has the powers to determine which association has fulfilled the necessary requirements to be registered.”
The judgment, delivered on October 12, is on a suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1049/2026 filed by Jyde Adelakun (suing for himself and on behalf of concerned citizens of Nigeria and members of the All Allies Alliance).
The certified true copy of the judgment was made available to newsmen on Friday in Abuja.
The suit had INEC, whose legal team was led by John Olusola Baiyeshea (SAN), as the sole defendant.
Adelakun claimed that his association wrote INEC on March 21, 2025 which letter was received on April 11, 2025, expressing the intention of the All Allies Alliance (AAA) to be registered as a political party in time for the 2027 general elections.
The plaintiff believed that the defendant ought to have registered the association within 90 days in accordance with Part 1 of the Regulations and Guidelines for the Registration of Political Parties 2022, a position INEC faulted.
Justice Omotosho, in determining the case, formulated two issues –
“Whether the enactment of the Electoral Act 2026 renders the cause of action of the plaintiff invalid, and whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought.”
On whether the plaintiff was entitled to the relies sought, the judge agreed with Baiyeshea that the plaintiff did not comply with the law to warrant the grant of the reliefs sought.
Justice Omotosho said: “From the facts before this court, the plaintiff’s association (AAA) first wrote to the defendant a letter dated 21st March, 2025.
“The body of the letter does not really strike me as a letter of intent to be registered as a political party. It appears more as a letter seeking
the Guidelines and Regulations for Registration as a political party.
“For the sake of argument, even if it is assumed that the letter is a letter of intent, it still falls short of the guidelines.”
The judge held that the provision of the law is that a letter of intent must bear the proposed name, symbol and acronym of the proposed party, noting that: “Looking at the letter of 21st March, 2025, none of these important details were mentioned in the letter.
“The proposed association has the duty to clearly state its proposed name, symbol and acronym but the plaintiff’s association had no such details. It is therefore not surprising that the list of associations intending to be registered as political parties released by the defendant (Exhibit AAA 3A) indicated that the plaintiff’s
association had no acronym.
“This critical failure renders the purported letter of intent invalid as it did not conform to the law,” he said .
The judge found that the second letter written by the AAA on February 3, 2026 which ought to serve as an application for registration did not also comply with Section 222 of the Constitution, which among others, requires a party to maintain an address in Abuja.
The judge said: “The requirement for a political party’s address to be in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja is a constitutional provision which means it cannot be varied.
“The plaintiff, in its several letters to the defendant, appears to have multiple addresses in Lagos and Abuja. In its letter of 3rd February, 2026 the correspondence address is 39 Alfred Rewane Close, Ikoyi Lagos and a temporary address of 44 Nouakchott Street, Wuse Zone 1, Abuja. In the letter of 20th February, 2026 which is an addendum letter, the address stated is Lagos State Liaison House, Plot 78 Ralph Shodeinde Street, Abuja FCT.
“All these multiple addresses do not depict an association with an address in Abuja. This is a constitutional breach and the defendant is entitled to refuse the registration to the plaintiff’s association.”
Justice however faulted INEC for not formally informing the plaintiff, via a letter why his association was not registered as a party, even though that would not have qualified the association to be registered.
He said:”However, this court is of the opinion that the defendant ought to have sent a letter of non-registration to the plaintiff stating the reasons for not proceeding with registering the association. This is according to section 75 (3) of the Electoral Act 2022.
“The defendant ought to have complied with this provision in notifying the plaintiff’s association.
Notwithstanding that no notification was sent, the plaintiff’s association cannot be deemed to have been registered as it did not comply with the requirements of the law.
“The question is, has the All Allies Alliance association complied with the requirements of the law? The answer is no. The plaintiff’s association did not present before the court copies of the required documents upon which the application is premised.
“No doubt that the plaintiff attached the covering letters for the said documents, but there is no evidence to show that the documents got to the defendant.
“It would amount to speculation for this court to begin to assume that the plaintiff’s association submitted all the required documents.
“The facts and evidence before this court are insufficient to establish the claims of the plaintiff and thus, the reliefs claimed are ungrantable.
“The right to be registered as a political party is not an absolute right as the defendant still retains the powers to register or deny an association of registration where it does not fulfill the requirements for registration.
“The plaintiff has not complied with the law on registration of an association as a political party. Therefore it is not entitled to have its association registered as a political party.
“Consequently, the suit will be dismissed. In final analysis, the claim of the plaintiff lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed,” he said.
Justice Omotosho however, faulted the position of the defendant that the suit was invalid because the cause of action allegedly arose after the enactment of the Electoral Act 2026.
He said: “Now this court takes judicial notice of the fact that the Electoral Act 2026 was signed into law on the 18th of February, 2026. This meant that up until the Electoral Act 2026 was signed into law, the applicable law was the Electoral Act 2022.
“The simple effect is that whether the cause of action arose 90 days from 21st March 2025 or 3rd of February, 2026, as argued by Defendant’s Counsel, the applicable law to this case is the Electoral Act 2026.
“I have gone through the Electoral Act 2026 and there is no portion of it which makes its operation retrospective. Therefore, this Court will determine this matter using the Electoral Act 2022.
“As at the 3rd of February, 2026, there was no official timetable for the general elections. It was announced on 13th of February 2026 when the defendant fixed the presidential and National Assembly elections for 20th February, 2027.
“The timetable was later revised as the presidential and National Assembly elections were brought forward to 16th January, 2027.
“The defendant, having released its timetable after the plaintiff submitted an application to be registered as a political party, cannot turn around to say that due to its revised timetable, the application was made less than 12 months to the general elections.
“This cannot be the position of the law. The defendant cannot take steps, retrace its steps and then expect to benefit from such action to the detriment of another.
“At the time the application for registration was made, there was no election timetable, thus the subsequent making of the timetable cannot be to the detriment of the case of the plaintiff.
“Consequently, I hold that the case of the plaintiff is not invalidated by the revised timetable of the defendant and thus the case is proper before this court,” the judge said.
