NDC Plunges Into Crisis As Court Voids Registration, Opposition Vows Appeal

A Federal High Court in Lokoja, Kogi State, has delivered a significant judgment, setting aside its earlier December 10, 2025 ruling which had compelled the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to register the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) as a political party. Justice Isah Dashen, who presided over the case, held that the initial judgment was “constitutionally defective” because all necessary parties were not afforded the opportunity to be heard before the decision was reached. This ruling followed an application brought by the Peace Movement Party (PMP), which argued it had a legal interest in the matter and was not joined in the original proceedings.

Justice Dashen affirmed that the PMP had successfully established its status as a necessary party whose interests could be affected by the outcome of the case. He further noted that material facts were suppressed during the process of obtaining the 2025 judgment, rendering the earlier proceedings a nullity. Consequently, the court ordered that the status quo existing before the December 2025 judgment be restored, pending the determination of the substantive suit. The judge also directed that the case should commence afresh, with INEC, the Peace Movement Party, and the Nigeria Democratic Congress all participating as parties in the proceedings.

Counsel to the PMP, C.S. Ekeocha, explained that his client approached the court after discovering that the NDC’s registration was allegedly based on a logo the PMP had previously submitted to INEC. Ekeocha clarified that the court’s decision means every action taken by INEC in compliance with the now-vacated judgment, including the recognition of NDC, the issuance of its certificate of registration, its inclusion in INEC’s records, and any appearance on ballot papers, must be withdrawn pending the final determination of the substantive suit. He stressed that the substantive case remains before the court and has not been concluded, with the ruling merely setting aside the previous judgment to allow all affected parties to be heard.

In response, the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) has vehemently rejected the Federal High Court’s ruling, vowing to appeal the decision. Osa Director, the party’s National Publicity Secretary, stated that the NDC would obtain and study the full text of the judgment to exercise its right to appeal, insisting that the judicial process is far from concluded. Senator Moses Cleopas Zuwoghe, NDC’s National Chairman, expressed dissatisfaction with the ruling, describing the Peace Movement Party as an “unregistered association” that lacked the legal standing to seek the reversal of the earlier judgment. The NDC maintains it was duly registered by INEC after a Federal High Court judgment in December 2025 upheld its constitutional right to freedom of association.

The NDC further highlighted that since its registration, it has carried out extensive political activities nationwide, including membership drives, congresses, conventions, and party primaries in line with INEC’s timetable. The party also confirmed its participation in recent bye-elections and the nomination of candidates for various positions ahead of the 2027 general elections. The party argued that the trial court became “functus officio” after delivering its final judgment in December 2025 and therefore lacked jurisdiction to revisit the matter through a motion. Senator Zuwoghe reassured party members and candidates that NDC has not been deregistered and its political activities remain valid, expressing confidence that appellate courts would overturn the ruling.

Hon. Victor Afam Ogene, Leader of the House of Representatives’ Caucus of the NDC, condemned the order as a “judicial coup against democracy” and an “assault on democracy,” describing it as a “calculated pattern of judicial harassment.” He pointed out that the 90-day statutory window to challenge the party’s registration had closed long ago and that INEC, the constitutionally empowered body for party registration, was not the appellant in the