The Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal has been asked to set aside the order mandating the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to register the All Democratic Alliance (ADA) as a political party ahead of the 2027 general elections.

The six grounds of appeal were lodged before the appellate court on Tuesday by an aggrieved member of the association, Dr. Umar Ardo, who had initially obtained the requisite access code from INEC but had his bid to register the ADA as a political party turned down.

According to the appellant, Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja erred in law and occasioned a miscarriage of justice when he ordered INEC to release its access code to a faction of the association led by Chief Akin Ricketts, who, the appellant alleged, had earlier been deposed as Pro Tem National Chairman of the association, with his name expunged from the association’s membership list.

While Chief Ricketts and Dr. Aminu Ahmed were listed as 1st and 2nd respondents, respectively, INEC was cited as the 3rd respondent in the appeal.

The appellant told the court that Justice Lifu wrongly held that the suit that led to his judgment was not statute-barred under Section 76 of the Electoral Act 2022, notwithstanding that the action was filed on 16 January, more than a month after the cause of action arose.

He insisted that Justice Lifu’s decision was in clear violation of the 14-day limitation period prescribed by Section 76 of the Electoral Act.

Ardo contended that the trial court erred in law and misdirected itself on the facts when it held that the suit did not amount to an abuse of court process, despite the existence of a pending prior suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2788/2025, which was between the same parties seeking identical relief which was the registration of the ADA as a political party.

“The appellant and some other members of ADA had earlier filed a suit seeking the same relief, registration of the All Democratic Alliance as a political party, a suit to which the 1st and 2nd respondents were also parties, and that suit is currently on appeal.

“The subsequent filing of this suit by the 1st and 2nd respondents, seeking the same relief against the same defendant (INEC) in respect of the same subject matter, constitutes a classic abuse of court process.

“The doctrine of abuse of court process is designed to prevent multiplicity of actions, vexatious litigation, and the undermining of pending appeals.

“The lower court failed to consider that the 1st and 2nd respondents were effectively forum shopping and attempting to circumvent the appellate process by filing a fresh suit rather than awaiting the outcome of the appellant’s suit FHC/ABJ/CS/2788/2025.

“The lower court’s refusal to recognise the abuse of process encourages duplication of judicial resources and creates the risk of conflicting judgments on the same subject matter.

“The trial court erred in law and misdirected itself on the facts when it failed to evaluate and give due evidential weight to the evidence that the 1st respondent had been deposed as Pro Tem National Chairman of the All Democratic Alliance, and that his name was not on the association’s list of members, thereby leaving him without the requisite locus standi to maintain the action.

“A person who is not a member of an association, and who has been removed from its leadership, lacks the legal capacity to sue on behalf of that association.

“The lower court’s failure to consider this evidence amounts to a denial of fair hearing to the appellant, as the evidence was directly relevant to the jurisdiction of the lower court and to the appellant’s defence.

“The denial of the registration of the appellant’s association is the subject of an appeal in CA/ABJ/CV/742/2026.

“The order of the trial court directed the 3rd respondent to issue a new code to the 1st and 2nd respondents within 72 hours, and to reopen its portal to allow them to make a fresh application for the registration of ADA in the names of the 1st and 2nd respondents, who are not members of the ADA.

“In so doing, the trial court had set aside the association’s decisions on its own internal affairs — a matter over which the trial court lacks jurisdiction.

“This honourable court erred in law when it failed to evaluate the minutes of the association, which contain the decisions of the association to change its leadership as it desired, and instead held that the 3rd respondent has the discretion to determine whether the association has met the requirements of the law based on the change of leadership,” the appeal further read.

Aside from asking the appellate court to nullify the high court judgment, Dr. Ardo applied for an award of costs against the respondents, jointly and severally.

It will be recalled that INEC had, in October 2025, revealed that ADA was among 14 pre-qualified associations that applied to be registered as political parties, having completed the upload of all required information and documentation.

Though the commission cleared the association and seven others for the next stage of the registration process, members of the group approached the court, alleging that the access code had been wrongly released to Ardo, who is neither its Pro-tem National Chairman nor its Secretary.

They urged the court to compel INEC to issue the access code to the plaintiffs to enable the association to upload the necessary information and documents for the registration of ADA as a political party.

The litigants also prayed the court to declare that INEC had violated extant laws by issuing the access code to the second defendant, Ardo.

They further urged the court to declare that the information uploaded to INEC’s portal by the wrong person — Ardo — on behalf of ADA was in violation of extant laws, as it was at variance with the information in the plaintiffs’ letter of intent, and should therefore be declared illegal, unlawful, null and void, and of no effect.

The plaintiffs asked the court to order INEC to register their association as a political party and to issue them a certificate of registration, as well as to extend the deadlines of May 10, 2026, and May 30, 2026, for the submission of ADA’s digital register of members and the submission of candidates, respectively.

In granting the reliefs, Justice Lifu faulted INEC for releasing its access code to Ardo, declaring the action illegal, wrongful, null and void.

He ordered INEC to open its portal for one week to enable the plaintiffs to upload the necessary documents, including their membership register, as required by law.

Justice Lifu nullified all actions previously taken on behalf of the association by Ardo.

The high court ordered INEC to issue the access code to the plaintiffs within 72 hours. (Vanguard)

Update news