The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has fixed March 24, 2026, for ruling on a joinder application in the suit seeking the deregistration of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Accord Party, Zenith Labour Party and Action Alliance over alleged non-compliance with constitutional requirements.
The development follows a suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2637/25, instituted by the Incorporated Trustees of the National Forum of Former Legislators against the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the Attorney-General of the Federation and the affected political parties.
The originating summons initially targeted only the ADC for deregistration, but was later amended to include the other parties, whose continued existence the plaintiffs contend breaches the provisions of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
At Tuesday’s proceedings before Justice Peter Lifu, counsel announced appearances for the parties, except for Action Alliance, which had two different lawyers from separate law firms claiming to represent it.
The two lawyers — Ibrahim Yakubu and Bello Lukman — maintained that they had valid letters of instruction to appear for the party.
In the exchange that followed, Justice Lifu asked whether both counsel were acting together. They responded negatively, insisting they had separate mandates.
The judge directed them to reconcile their positions, warning that the court would “do the needful” if they failed to resolve the representation issue.
In another application, counsel to the Accord Party, Musibau Adetunbi (SAN), sought leave of court to file a further counter-affidavit in opposition to the amended originating summons joining the party in the suit.
Adetunbi, who brought the motion pursuant to Order 26 Rule 1 and Order 66 Rule 8, argued that the further counter-affidavit was necessary to address salient facts allegedly omitted in the earlier process. He urged the court to grant the application in the interest of justice and to enable it to reach a just determination.
However, counsel to the plaintiff, Yakubu Abdullahi Ruba (SAN), opposed the application, arguing that no new facts were introduced in the amended originating summons to warrant a further counter-affidavit.
The PUNCH