Abuja's Court of Appeal has pushed back hearings on a critical case involving five deregistered political parties until July 7, 2026. The three-judge panel adjourned Thursday to give all parties time to prepare written arguments.
Musibau Adetunbi is counsel for the Accord Party. He told the court that documents from the lower court only arrived this week.
Adetunbi asked for more time to file necessary paperwork. No one objected to the request.
Presiding Justice Abba Mohammed approved the adjournment and set July 7 as the new hearing date. Some judges will be away for special sessions, making that date necessary rather than an earlier one the defence had sought.
At stake is a Federal High Court ruling that ordered INEC to strip five parties of their registration. Justice Peter Lifu made that decision in Abuja.
The affected parties are ADC, Action Peoples Party, Action Alliance, Accord Party, and Zenith Labour Party. All five, according to Justice Lifu, failed to meet constitutional performance requirements.
INEC cannot recognize these parties going forward. They cannot field candidates or participate in the 2027 elections under the court's order.
The National Forum of Former Legislators filed the original case. They argued the five parties didn't hit the required electoral benchmarks.
Under Nigeria's constitution and electoral laws, parties must secure 25 percent of votes in a state during presidential elections. Alternatively, they must win at least one seat at federal, state, or local government level.
According to NFFL, none of the five parties achieved those targets. The 2023 general election and subsequent by-elections showed this, the group maintained.
INEC disagreed with the deregistration push. The commission said these parties had actually won seats in state assemblies and the National Assembly.
INEC presented certificates of return as proof. These documents showed candidates from the parties had won elections.
But on June 16, something changed. The Court of Appeal halted implementation of the deregistration order temporarily.
It was a unanimous decision by the appellate court. The judges said the lower court acted improperly by ignoring an earlier directive.
That directive had suspended the case pending another appeal before the Court of Appeal. Continuing despite this violated judicial hierarchy, the court ruled.
Enforcement will remain frozen until the appeal is fully decided. This gives the affected parties hope while the legal battle continues.
