Screenshot
The crisis surrounding the All Democratic Alliance (ADA) has intensified after the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal was petitioned to nullify an order that directed the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to register the association as a political party ahead of the 2027 general elections.
Background of the ADA Registration Dispute
In the notice of appeal, Ardo contended that Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court, Abuja, erred in law by ordering INEC to release its access code to a faction led by Chief Akin Ricketts. Ardo asserted that Ricketts had previously been removed as the Pro Tem National Chairman of ADA and his name had been struck from the association’s membership register.
Grounds of Appeal Raised by Ardo
The appeal outlines six grounds. First, Ardo argues that the lower court wrongly held that the suit was not statute‑barred under Section 76 of the Electoral Act 2022, claiming the case was filed on 16 January — more than a month after the cause of action arose, contrary to the 14‑day limitation period.
Second, the appellant points out that a prior suit (FHC/ABJ/CS/2788/2025) between the same parties over the same subject matter is still pending on appeal. Filing a fresh case seeking identical relief — registration of ADA as a political party — amounts to an abuse of court process, designed to prevent multiplicity of actions and vexatious litigation.
Third, Ardo alleges that the respondents attempted to bypass the pending appeal by forum shopping, filing a new case before the Federal High Court instead of awaiting the outcome of the earlier suit. This, he argues, undermines the appellate process and risks conflicting judgments.
Challenges to Jurisdiction and Internal Association Matters
The appellant also faults the trial court for failing to evaluate evidence that Ricketts had been removed from ADA’s leadership and was no longer a member. According to Ardo, a person who is not a member and has been expelled from leadership lacks locus standi to sue on behalf of the association.
Furthermore, Ardo maintains that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to interfere in ADA’s internal affairs, including leadership changes. He notes that the denial of registration is already the subject of an appeal (CA/ABJ/CV/742/2026) and that the trial court’s order overstepped its authority by dictating internal association decisions.
Ardo adds that the lower court neglected to consider the association’s minutes, which recorded the leadership changes, and that the court should have given those decisions evidential weight.
Requested Relief and Costs
Aside from asking the Appeal Court to set aside the Federal High Court judgment, Ardo has applied for costs against the respondents jointly and severally.
Earlier INEC Clearance and Counterclaims
Although INEC had cleared ADA and seven other associations for the next stage of registration, members of the group later approached the court alleging that the access code had been wrongly released to Ardo. They claimed Ardo was neither the Pro Tem National Chairman nor the Secretary and sought an order compelling INEC to issue the code to them.
The plaintiffs also prayed for a declaration that INEC violated extant laws by issuing the access code to Ardo, and that any information uploaded to INEC’s portal by Ardo on behalf of ADA be declared illegal, unlawful, null and void.
Judgment of Justice Lifu
In his judgment, Justice Lifu found INEC’s release of the access code to Ardo illegal, wrongful, null and void. He ordered INEC to open its portal for one week to allow the plaintiffs to upload the required documents, including ADA’s membership register, and to issue the access code to the plaintiffs within 72 hours. All actions previously taken on behalf of the association by Ardo were nullified.
About the Author
