{"id":128361,"date":"2026-07-15T03:03:13","date_gmt":"2026-07-15T02:03:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pointblanknews.com\/pbn\/?p=128361"},"modified":"2026-07-15T03:03:13","modified_gmt":"2026-07-15T02:03:13","slug":"adc-deregistration-appeal-court-reserves-judgment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/pointblanknews.com\/pbn\/news\/adc-deregistration-appeal-court-reserves-judgment\/","title":{"rendered":"ADC Deregistration: Appeal Court Reserves Judgment"},"content":{"rendered":"
By John Azu<\/strong><\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n

The Court of Appeal in Abuja on Tuesday reserved judgment in the appeal challenging the Federal High Court’s decision ordering the deregistration of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) and four other political parties.<\/p>\n

A three-member panel led by Justice Abba Mohammed fixed the matter for judgment after hearing arguments from counsel representing the parties, with a date for the ruling to be communicated later.<\/p>\n

The appeal stems from the June 15 judgment of the Federal High Court, Abuja, which directed the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister the ADC, Action Alliance (AA), Accord Party, Zenith Labour Party (ZLP) and Action Peoples Party (APP) for allegedly failing to comply with Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution.<\/p>\n

The trial court held that the parties had not produced any elected officials in the last general election, a development it considered sufficient grounds for deregistration.<\/p>\n

The suit was instituted by the National Forum of Former Legislators (NFFL), which argued that the affected political parties no longer met the constitutional requirements for continued registration.<\/p>\n

At Tuesday’s proceedings, lawyers representing the parties adopted their briefs and urged the appellate court to uphold their respective positions before the panel reserved judgment.<\/p>\n

The appeal comes against the backdrop of an earlier intervention by the Court of Appeal, which on June 16 stayed the execution of the Federal High Court judgment pending the determination of the appeal.<\/p>\n

In a strongly worded ruling granting the stay, the appellate court faulted the decision of the trial court to proceed with delivering judgment despite the pendency of an appeal and an application for a stay before it.<\/p>\n

Describing the action as a serious breach of judicial hierarchy, the court held:<\/p>\n

“Courts are enjoined to protect their integrity. This Court has supervisory authority over the trial court. The decision of the lower court to proceed with the judgment despite the express order of this court is a brazen violation of the hierarchy of the court and the 1999 Constitution.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The appellate court further stated that the lower court’s conduct amounted to “the highest form of judicial impertinence,” adding that the Supreme Court had previously held that a judge who acted in such a manner “is unfit for the bench as it amounts to judicial rascality.”<\/p>\n

The court added:<\/p>\n

“This court has the duty to invoke its powers in ensuring that its orders are made.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

“The application for a stay of execution is hereby granted. The enforcement of the judgment is stayed.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The outcome of the appeal is expected to have significant implications for the affected political parties, particularly the ADC, which has recently emerged as a major platform for opposition political figures ahead of the 2027 general elections.<\/p>\n

Until the Court of Appeal delivers its judgment, the earlier order staying the enforcement of the Federal High Court’s decision remains in force, allowing the affected parties to retain their legal status.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n