The bid by the Forum of former Legislators to compel the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, to deregister five political parties has received a boost with the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice AGF joining the group in the legal battle.

Although the AGF is a defendant in the suit against the African Democratic Congress ADC, the Accord Party and three others, the AGF in a dramatic turn at the Federal High Court in Abuja, pitched tents with the former legislators in pushing for the scrapping of the affected parties before the 2027 general elections.

The Minister predicated his position on the argument that the continued existence of ADC, Accord Party and others violated Constitutional provisions and undermines Nigeria’s electoral integrity.

The Attorney General contended that unless the court intervenes, INEC would “continue to act in breach of its constitutional duty” by retaining parties that have failed to meet the minimum requirements prescribed by law.

In the process filed before the court, AGF stressed that the right to associate as a political party is not absolute and must be exercised within constitutional limits.

The Minister further argued that it is in the interest of justice for the court to grant the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs.

The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2637/2026 and filed at the Abuja Judicial Division of the Federal High Court, lists the Incorporated Trustees of the National Forum of Former Legislators as the sole plaintiff.

The defendants include INEC as the first defendant and the Attorney General of the Federation as the second defendant, alongside five political parties: African Democratic Congress (ADC), Action Alliance (AA), Action Peoples Party (APP), Accord (A), and Zenith Labour Party (ZLP).

At the center of the issue in the case is whether INEC has a constitutional obligation to remove parties that fail to meet electoral performance thresholds set out in Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and reinforced by the Electoral Act 2022 and INEC’s own regulations.

The plaintiffs argued that the affected parties have persistently failed to satisfy the constitutional benchmarks required to retain their registration. These include winning at least 25 per cent of votes in a state during a presidential election or securing at least one elective seat at the national, state or local government level.

They contended that the parties performed poorly in the 2023 general elections and subsequent by-elections, failing to win seats across key tiers of government, yet continue to be recognised by INEC as eligible political platforms.

The plaintiffs maintained that the continued recognition is unlawful and undermines the integrity of Nigeria’s electoral system.

In the affidavit supporting the suit, the forum’s National Coordinator, Igbokwe Raphael Nnanna, stated that allowing parties that have not met constitutional requirements to remain on the register “is unconstitutional, illegal and a violation” of the governing legal framework.

The suit asked the court to declare that INEC is duty-bound to deregister such parties and to compel the commission to do so before preparations for the 2027 elections advance further.

Beyond declaratory reliefs, the plaintiffs are also seeking far-reaching orders that would bar the affected parties from participating in the next general elections or engaging in political activities such as campaigns, rallies and primaries. They further request injunctions restraining INEC from recognising or dealing with the parties in any official capacity unless and until they comply strictly with constitutional provisions.

Central to the plaintiffs’ argument is their interpretation of the law as imposing a mandatory duty on INEC. They argue that the use of the word “shall” in the Constitution leaves no room for discretion once a party fails to meet the stipulated thresholds.

In their written address, they rely on statutory provisions and judicial precedents to contend that electoral performance is an objective condition that must be enforced to maintain discipline, transparency, and accountability in the political system.

Meanwhile, in a notice filed pursuant to Order 15 Rule 1 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019, the Attorney General, who is a defendant in the suit, formally admitted the plaintiff’s case to the extent of his constitutional responsibilities.

He maintained that, as the chief law officer of the federation, he is duty-bound to defend and uphold the Constitution, including ensuring compliance with the Electoral Act and other laws governing elections in Nigeria.

The filing emphasised that the Attorney General’s role extends beyond litigation to preventive oversight, ensuring that laws are faithfully implemented to maintain public confidence in the electoral process. It described the case as a public interest litigation aimed at safeguarding democratic integrity and promoting constitutional observance.

According to the document, the Attorney General argued that citizens, including the plaintiff group, have the right to challenge constitutional breaches, particularly where electoral processes are concerned. He added that supporting such litigation aligns with his dual role as both a defender of the state and an advocate for citizens’ rights.

The submission also highlighted the broader implications of non-compliance by political parties. It argued that the continued existence of parties that fail to meet constitutional thresholds contributes to ballot congestion, increases the cost of election administration, and undermines the intent of Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which empowers INEC to deregister underperforming parties.

The plaintiff further contended that INEC has no residual discretion to retain parties that do not satisfy the constitutional criteria, insisting that failure to deregister them constitutes a continuing breach of constitutional duty. The suit warned that such inaction could be challenged through public interest litigation, as is the case before the court.

Additionally, the filing noted that the plaintiff, comprising former legislators, possesses the requisite standing to institute the action, having been directly involved in the enactment and oversight of Nigeria’s constitutional and electoral framework.

The Attorney General also underscored the importance of access to justice, arguing that his support for the suit would help bridge gaps faced by citizens seeking to enforce constitutional rights. He maintained that collaboration between government institutions and civic actors is essential to strengthening legal literacy, accountability, and democratic participation.

The Attorney General of the Federation is represented in the suit by a team of lawyers led by Prof. Joshua Olatoke, SAN, alongside O. J. David, U. O. Olufadi, D. O. Bamidele, V. D. Maiye, Waheed Abdulraheem and A. K. Abdulmumin, all of whom signed the court filing before the Federal High Court in Abuja.