The Federal High Court in Abuja ruled that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has final authority to decide whether an association qualifies for registration as a political party.

Justice James Omotosho, in his judgment, held that an association’s right to register as a political party was not absolute, as INEC retained the power to approve or reject an application where the stipulated requirements were not met.

The judge noted that although the Constitution guarantees the formation of political parties, Section 222 sets out conditions associations must meet to qualify for registration.

He further held that the constitutional requirements for registering an association as a political party were exhaustive, but INEC was responsible for determining whether an applicant had fulfilled the conditions.

According to the judge, the commission has the authority to assess applications and decide which associations meet the constitutional requirements for registration.

The judgment, delivered on October 12, concerns 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).

INEC, whose legal team was led by John Olusola Baiyeshea (SAN), was the sole defendant.

Adelakun claimed that his association wrote INEC on March 21, 2025, and that INEC received the letter on April 11, 2025, expressing the All Allies Alliance’s (AAA) intention to register as a political party in time for the 2027 general elections.

The plaintiff believed the defendant ought to have registered the association within 90 days under Part 1 of the Regulations and Guidelines for the Registration of Political Parties 2022, a position INEC rejected.

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 reliefs sought, the judge agreed with Baiyeshea that the plaintiff did not comply with the law to warrant 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 state its proposed name, symbol and acronym clearly, 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 the AAA wrote on February 3, 2026, which ought to serve as an application for registration, also did not comply with Section 222 of the Constitution, which, among other things, 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, it gives 39 Alfred Rewane Close, Lagos, as its correspondence address and 44 Nouakchott Street, Wuse 1, Abuja, as the address. In the 20th February 2026 letter, in an addendum, it states he address as 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 of 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 in terms of section 75(3) of the Electoral Act 2022.

“The defendant ought to have complied with this provision in notifying the plaintiff’s association.

Although no notification was sent, the plaintiff’s association cannot be deemed registered because it did not comply with the law’s requirements.

“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 copies of the required documents before the court, on 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 power to register or deny an association registration where it does not fulfil 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 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. The defendant announced this on 13th February 2026, when it 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 revised timetable of the defendant does not invalidate the case of the plaintiff and thus the case is proper before this court,” the judge said. (The Nation)