The administration of Bola Ahmed Tinubu has stepped into a fresh constitutional and political storm, as the Attorney General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), approaches the Federal High Court in Abuja seeking an order that could erase five registered political parties from Nigeriaās democratic landscape.
In a suit now before the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court, the AGF is pushing for the deregistration of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Action Alliance (AA), Action Peoples Party (APP), Accord (A), and Zenith Labour Party (ZLP), arguing that their continued existence violates constitutional provisions and undermines electoral integrity.
The legal move, cited in filings referenced by the Nigerian Tribune, signals a potentially sweeping shake-up in Nigeriaās already fragile multi-party system, raising urgent questions about the balance between constitutional enforcement and political pluralism.
At the center of the legal confrontation is the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), which the AGF accuses of failing in its constitutional duty by retaining parties that have allegedly not met the performance benchmarks required under Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), alongside provisions of the Electoral Act 2022.
According to the filings, the continued registration of these parties represents a breach of constitutional responsibility, with the AGF warning that unless the court intervenes, INEC would persist in what he described as an ongoing violation of its legal obligations.
But the case is not merely administrative, it is deeply political.
Opposition voices have already begun framing the move as part of a broader pattern under Tinubuās government, alleging a calculated effort to shrink dissenting platforms by weakening or eliminating alternative political structures. These accusations, though unproven, are gaining traction within political circles already tense from post-2023 election disputes and internal party fractures.
The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2637/2026, was instituted by the Incorporated Trustees of the National Forum of Former Legislators, adding another layer of complexity to a case that blends legal interpretation with political consequence. Both INEC and the Attorney General are listed as defendants, placing the electoral umpire in a precarious position between constitutional interpretation and political perception.
In their argument, the plaintiffs insist that the right to political association, while fundamental, is not absolute. They maintain that political parties must justify their existence through measurable electoral performance, including securing at least 25 percent of votes in a state during presidential elections or winning elective positions across federal, state, or local government levels.
Failure to meet these thresholds, they argue, renders continued registration unconstitutional.
In a supporting affidavit, National Coordinator Igbokwe Raphael Nnanna described the situation in stark terms, insisting that allowing such parties to remain registered is āillegal, unconstitutional, and a violationā of the governing framework.
Yet, beneath the legal language lies a more volatile reality: Nigeriaās democracy is once again being testedānot just by the letter of the law, but by the perception of fairness, inclusion, and political space.
If the court grants the reliefs sought, it would mark one of the most significant reductions of political parties in recent years, potentially reshaping the opposition landscape ahead of future elections. Smaller parties often dismissed as fringe have historically served as breeding grounds for new ideas, protest candidacies, and political realignments.
Their removal could streamline the ballot, but also narrow the democratic field.
As the case unfolds in Abuja, the implications stretch far beyond the courtroom. What is being decided is not only whether five parties survive, but how far the state can go in defining who is allowed to compete for power in Nigeriaās evolving democracy.