Legal distractions, ‘intimidation’ weaken opposition’s 2027 contest

• Obi alleges intimidation, fears for safety
• ADC leadership crisis, SDP tussle add to opposition’s legal troubles
• Lawyers divided over court’s power to revisit judgment
• Experts warn disputes may derail opposition’s poll plans

With barely six months to the 2027 general election, mounting court battles and lingering leadership crises across opposition parties have heightened fears that the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) could face a fractured and weakened challenge at the polls.

Yesterday, the presidential candidate of the Nigeria Democratic Congress, Peter Obi, expressed concern that the desperation of some political actors ahead of next year’s general election could plunge the country into avoidable chaos.

Obi said he had faced mounting personal and political frustrations since declaring his intention to contest the 2027 presidential election, alleging that officials at both the federal and subnational levels had subjected him to political hostility.

Speaking during a podcast hosted by Chude Jideonwo, the former Anambra State governor claimed that he had, on several occasions, been prevented from enjoying basic amenities available to ordinary citizens despite his status as a former governor.

He warned that the alleged attacks against him could escalate into threats to his personal safety as the 2027 election approaches, adding that he had become the target of what he described as a sustained campaign of calumny and state-sponsored efforts to frustrate his livelihood and restrict his personal freedom.

Obi rejected suggestions that his claims were unsubstantiated, insisting that although the government had avoided direct attacks on him, its involvement was evident in actions allegedly designed to make life difficult for him.

He further alleged that efforts to stop him from appearing on the 2027 presidential ballot had progressed to the point where he now feared for his life.

“I may not even be alive! I’m telling you. Every single thing I do for a living, this government is frustrating it. Deliberately, everything. So, there is even a possibility that if they have the opportunity, I will not be alive,” he said.

The NDC presidential candidate also claimed that some of his former associates had distanced themselves from him for fear that the government could target them and their businesses. According to him, the prevailing atmosphere of fear has also fuelled ethnic divisions across the country.

He said electoral competition in a democracy should never come at the expense of personal freedom, lamenting that Nigeria had become deeply polarised and fearful.

“We have divided the country, bred hatred among us. That’s why I keep saying I want to bring back unity where there’s division. I want to show love, compassion, care. It’s gone out of here,” Obi said.

Despite his concerns, Obi expressed optimism that the vision of a new Nigeria remained achievable, saying his decision to seek the presidency was driven by a desire to help heal the country’s deep divisions.

ADC leadership crisis, SDP tussle add to opposition’s legal troubles
Recently, the Federal High Court in Lokoja, Kogi State, reversed its earlier judgment directing the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to register the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC), throwing the party’s legal status into fresh uncertainty.

The development followed similar challenges within the opposition coalition platform, the ADC, where a leadership crisis has triggered litigation, while INEC only recently recognised Sadiq Abubakar Gombe as National Chairman of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) after a prolonged tussle with Shehu Gabam. The succession of disputes has fuelled concerns that the opposition may head into the January 18, 2027, presidential and National Assembly elections, and the February 6 governorship and State Assembly polls, deeply divided.

The ruling marked a dramatic reversal of the court’s December 2025 judgment, in which Justice Isah Dashen ordered INEC to register the NDC. Acting on an application by the Peace Movement Party (PMP), an unregistered association that argued the earlier judgment affected its interests, the court set aside its previous order and restored the parties to their pre-judgment positions.

Justice Dashen held that the failure to join the PMP in the original suit amounted to a denial of a fair hearing, rendering the earlier judgment invalid. The decision immediately reignited debate over the doctrine of functus officio and other constitutional and legal questions that could ultimately be settled by the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court.

As the legal battles continue against the backdrop of INEC’s election timetable, concerns are growing that technical disputes, conflicting judicial decisions and unresolved leadership crises could undermine the opposition’s readiness for the 2027 polls.

Meanwhile, the electoral umpire has refused to provide the necessary codes for the NDC and the five political parties whose registrations are being challenged in court, including the ADC, Accord Party, Action Alliance, African Alliance Party and Zenith Labour Party.

Stakeholders told The Guardian that although the confusion triggered by the judicial pronouncements could hinder the participation of opposition parties, the Lokoja High Court judgment would be challenged expeditiously at the Court of Appeal to ensure the NDC appears on the ballot.

A legal practitioner, Clinton Ejenavi, maintained that a court lacks the power to revisit the merits of a case after delivering its final judgment and becoming functus officio, except under a few narrowly defined circumstances recognised by law.

On whether a court can reopen a matter after judgment and whether a party can validly file an appeal more than six months after judgment was delivered, the lawyer argued that once a court has rendered its final decision, it ceases to have jurisdiction over the substantive issues in the case.

According to him, the principle has been firmly established by judicial authorities, including the decision in Mohammed v. Husseini (1998) 14 NWLR (Pt. 584) 108.

He explained that the law permits only limited exceptions under which a court may interfere with its judgment, such as cases involving fraud, judgments that are null and void from the outset, breaches of the right to a fair hearing, or situations covered by the slip rule relating to the correction of clerical errors.

“The only recognised exceptions are when the judgment was obtained by fraud, nullity ab initio, breach of fair hearing, or the slip rule (correct clerical errors). Outside these, the remedy is an appeal and nothing more,” Ejenavi said.

On whether the Peace Movement Party or any other litigant can file an appeal more than six months after judgment, Ejenavi maintained that such an appeal cannot be lodged as of right once the statutory time limit has expired.

“It is my humble submission that they cannot do so as of right. Once the prescribed period lapses, leave of court is mandatory,” he said.

The lawyer explained that an applicant seeking to appeal outside the stipulated period must convince the court that there were valid and substantial reasons for the delay and that the proposed appeal contains arguable grounds deserving judicial consideration.

He cited the Supreme Court decision in Abubakar v. Yar’Adua (2008) 1 SCNJ 549 as authority for the position.

Legal analysts note that the doctrines of functus officio and time limits for appeals are fundamental safeguards designed to ensure finality in litigation and prevent the endless reopening of concluded disputes.

Providing clarification on his assertions, prominent lawyer Pius Danba Pius, Esq., explained that the judgment did not necessarily end the political journey of the NDC, noting that the party still had legal options available.

On whether an unregistered association could approach the court, Pius said: “Yes. That is how the NDC itself filed the case that led to its registration.”

He further addressed questions about whether the Federal High Court in Lokoja had the authority to set aside its earlier decision, saying: “Yes. On grounds of lack of jurisdiction, fraud, misrepresentation or lack of service.”

On why the case was handled in Lokoja, the legal expert explained that the choice of venue was not unusual, stating: “Because the Federal High Court is one, and the NDC chose Lokoja for the case from the beginning.”

Speaking on the implication of the judgment for the party’s current status, Pius said the decision effectively returned the matter to the stage before registration. He dismissed suggestions that the ruling had completely closed the door on the party, stressing that further legal steps remained available.

On whether INEC would continue to recognise the NDC, he explained that it would depend on the outcome of further legal action, stressing: “If they can get a stay of execution; otherwise, no recognition for now until there is another court order.”

Also, an Abuja-based constitutional lawyer and human rights activist, Okueyelegbe S. E. Maliki, said that although courts generally become functus officio after delivering final judgments, the Supreme Court, in CITEC International Estate Ltd v Francis, affirmed that “once this court or any other court makes a decision, it becomes functus officio and lacks the jurisdiction to revisit that decision.”

“The Supreme Court has held that an order made in breach of a party’s right to fair hearing is a nullity,” Maliki stated, adding that a court can also set aside a decision obtained through fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.

On appeals against Federal High Court judgments, the lawyer said such appeals are subject to the statutory timelines under the Court of Appeal Act (C.36 LFN 2004). He explained that a notice of appeal against an interlocutory decision must be filed within 14 days, while an appeal against a final judgment must ordinarily be filed within three months (90 days).

Although the Court of Appeal has the power to extend the time prescribed by law in the interest of justice, he said an applicant must show sufficient cause for the delay, adding: “After six months, an appeal would ordinarily be statute-barred unless the Court of Appeal grants condonation.”

Addressing the Lokoja case involving the Peace Movement Party, Maliki said the party was not an original party to the suit and therefore could not appeal the December 2025 judgment as of right, but only as an interested party.

He argued that by June 2026, more than six months after the judgment, the ordinary window for appeal had effectively closed, stressing that the PMP’s legal option was to seek an extension of time from the Court of Appeal or approach the trial court to set aside the judgment on the ground that it was a nullity.

“PMP filed a motion at the trial court to set aside the decree. The position taken by PMP is also supported by the principle that a party affected by a court order that is a nullity has the right to approach the court to set it aside.

“Any other party, including the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), seeking to challenge the December 10, 2025 judgment would ordinarily have to appeal within 90 days or seek an extension of time,” Maliki stated.

Former Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice in Benue State, Dr Alex Adum, also weighed in on the judgment of the Federal High Court setting aside its own earlier order that compelled INEC to register the NDC, describing the court as generally functus officio after delivering its judgment and therefore unable to revisit its earlier decision by way of motion except within the narrow exceptions recognised by law.

The legal luminary also argued that the PMP, being an unregistered and unrecognised association, faces a substantial challenge in establishing the requisite locus standi.

He told The Guardian that allegations relating to the similarity of logos constitute a fresh and independent cause of action that cannot properly be litigated through a motion seeking to reopen concluded proceedings in which a final judgment has been delivered.

According to him, “Any attempt to invalidate the judgment through such a procedure would likely be met with objections founded on lack of jurisdiction, absence of locus standi, abuse of court process, violation of fair hearing, and the doctrine of finality of litigation, which I believe the appellate court would uphold.”

NDC’s journey did not begin in 2025
According to accounts based on the Certified True Copy (CTC) of the judgment and party records, the association first sought registration with INEC as far back as 2017 but remained unregistered for years because of disputes over compliance with INEC’s registration requirements.

The dispute intensified during INEC’s fresh registration exercise ahead of the 2027 elections. Although INEC initially received 110 applications, a figure that later rose to 171, the commission did not include the NDC among the associations that progressed through the administrative screening.

After evaluating the applications, INEC shortlisted only 14 associations for the next stage, and the NDC was not among them.

The 14 associations shortlisted by INEC were the African Transformation Party (ATP), All Democratic Alliance (ADA), Advance Nigeria Congress (ANC), Abundance Social Party (ASP), African Alliance Party (AAP), Citizens Democratic Alliance (CDA), Democratic Leadership Alliance (DLA), Grassroots Initiative Party (GRIP), Green Future Party (GFP), Liberation People’s Party (LPP), National Democratic Party (NDP), National Reform Party (NRP), Patriotic Peoples Alliance (PPA) and Peoples Freedom Party (PFP).

Rather than continue through INEC’s administrative process, four applicants acting on behalf of the association— Takori Mohammed Sani, Ikenna Morgan Enekweizu, Abdulmumin Ohiare Abdulsalami and Pius Ugboja—instituted Suit No. FHC/LKJ/CS/49/2025 at the Federal High Court in Lokoja against INEC.

They argued that the commission had unlawfully refused to register the NDC despite the association having met the constitutional and statutory requirements for registration.

On December 10, 2025, Justice Isah Dashen agreed with the applicants. The court held that INEC ought to register the association and directed the commission to issue it a certificate of registration. INEC subsequently complied with the order and recognised the NDC as a political party.

However, the legal victory was short-lived. Some observers questioned how an association that did not appear among the 14 pre-qualified groups eventually secured registration while others that had progressed through the commission’s verification process were left behind.

Those questions became louder after the All Democratic Alliance (ADA) and other associations filed separate court actions challenging the legality of the NDC’s registration.

In the suit, Ahidjo Ibrahim Karlahi, a chieftain and director of the All Democratic Alliance (ADA), asked the court to determine whether INEC was “under obligation to ensure compliance, obedience and mandatory adherence to the constitutional provisions, statutes and guidelines guiding the process of registration of new political parties entitled to participate in the 2027 political activities including general elections in Nigeria”.

Perhaps the biggest mystery is the emergence of the Peace Movement Party.

Publicly available INEC records released during the registration exercise listed 110 associations in June 2025 and later identified the 14 associations that survived the preliminary screening. A review of the documents by The Guardian did not show the PMP among them.

Yet, the PMP persuaded the court that it had earlier submitted the disputed logo to INEC and that the judgment registering the NDC directly affected its legal interests because the logo allegedly belonged to it.

The court agreed that the PMP should have been heard before the earlier judgment was delivered. However, political observers believe several questions remain unanswered. One is this: if the PMP indeed had an earlier application before INEC, why does its name not appear in the publicly available records? Or was the evidence relied upon by the court contained only in documents filed during the proceedings?

The central issue, however, is whether the PMP has the legal right to reopen the case. Ordinarily, once a court delivers its final judgment, it becomes functus officio, meaning its role in that case has ended except for correcting clerical errors or dealing with limited post-judgment applications.

The NDC’s position is that the PMP, not being a party to the original proceedings, ought to have appealed the judgment rather than ask the same court to set it aside.

The PMP, however, relied on a different legal principle: that no person whose legal rights may be affected by a court’s decision should be condemned unheard. If its proprietary interest in the disputed logo existed before the judgment, the failure to join it could amount to a denial of a fair hearing, rendering the earlier proceedings liable to be nullified.

Reasoning upheld
Another unresolved issue concerns INEC. When the commission reduced 171 applicants to 14, it explained that many associations had failed to comply with constitutional and statutory requirements.

However, the specific deficiencies of the individual applicants were not disclosed to the public.

Analysts also argue that the litigation raises important constitutional questions about the relationship between the judiciary and INEC.

Under Sections 222, 223 and 225A of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), read together with Section 75 of the Electoral Act 2022, the legal framework for the registration and regulation of political parties is vested in INEC.
At the same time, Section 6 of the Constitution vests judicial powers in the courts, including the authority to review administrative actions to ensure they comply with the Constitution and other laws.

Observers also ask whether a court can compel the commission to register an association where INEC maintains that the constitutional and statutory requirements have not been met, or whether the court should merely direct the electoral body to reconsider the application in accordance with the law.

NDC and matters arising
The controversy over the legal status of the NDC predates the involvement of the Peace Movement Party and has its roots in INEC’s exercise to register new political parties ahead of the 2027 elections.

In June 2025, the commission published a list of 110 associations seeking registration.

The number later rose to 171 as more applications were received.

At the time, the commission said each application was assessed based on its prima facie compliance with the provisions of Section 222 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), Section 79 (1), (2) and (4) of the Electoral Act 2022, and Clause 2 (i) and (ii) of the Commission’s Regulations and Guidelines for Political Parties 2022.

After what it described as a thorough assessment and verification of compliance with the Constitution and the Electoral Act, INEC later announced that only the Democratic Leadership Alliance (DLA) met all the statutory requirements for registration.

The commission clarified that the NDC was not registered through the administrative screening process but in compliance with the judgment of the Federal High Court in Lokoja in Suit No. FHC/LKJ/CS/49/2025, which directed INEC to register the association as a political party.

However, it remains on record that the NDC was not among the associations that progressed through INEC’s fresh registration process. (Guardian)