Appeal Court restores ADC and four other parties: Full list and what changes before the 2027 elections

• The Court of Appeal restored the ADC and four other political parties after overturning their deregistration.

• The court ruled the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction, making its deregistration order invalid.

• INEC must continue recognising the five parties ahead of the 2027 elections, unless the Supreme Court rules otherwise.

With the 2027 general elections approaching, the Court of Appeal has delivered a landmark ruling that could significantly impact Nigeria’s political landscape.

The court overturned a previous High Court decision ordering the deregistration of five political parties, effectively restoring their legal status and eligibility for future polls.

This is particularly vital for the African Democratic Congress (ADC), a key player in a growing opposition coalition, as the ruling clears a major legal hurdle for their campaign.

Beyond the ADC, the judgement revives four other parties and establishes a clearer legal boundary for how and when political parties can be deregistered.

The Court of Appeal restored the legal recognition of the following five political parties:

1. African Democratic Congress (ADC)

2. Accord Party

3. Action Alliance (AA)

4. Action Peoples Party (APP) 

5. Zenith Labour Party (ZLP) 

The ruling means all five parties remain duly registered political parties under Nigerian law unless a higher court decides otherwise.

READ NEXT: 10 important revelations Babachir Lawal made about Tinubu and Nigeria in explosive new interview

The controversy began after Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja ruled that the five parties should be deregistered.

The court held that they allegedly failed to satisfy constitutional requirements for continued registration under Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), directing the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to withdraw their recognition. 

That judgement immediately raised questions because one of the affected parties, the ADC, had become the political home of a growing opposition coalition preparing for the 2027 elections.

READ NEXT: PoS agents must register with the NDPC: Who is affected and what the court ruling means

The Court of Appeal found fundamental legal problems with the Federal High Court's decision.

According to the appellate court:

• The lower court wrongly assumed jurisdiction.

• The case was filed by a non-juristic entity—an entity without legal capacity to institute the lawsuit.

• Because the suit itself was incompetent, there was no valid basis for the consequential order directing INEC to deregister the parties.

The trial court also failed to properly evaluate evidence showing that the affected parties had previously won elective offices, evidence that was relevant to determining whether they met constitutional requirements. 

In unusually strong language, the Court of Appeal reportedly described the lower court's conduct as a form of "judicial impertinence", referencing previous Supreme Court authorities criticising judges who exceed their jurisdiction. 

In effect, the appellate court concluded that once the underlying suit was legally defective, every order flowing from it, including the deregistration directive, could not stand.

READ ALSO: INEC wants to test-run the 2027 presidential election before Nigerians vote

The immediate consequence is that INEC can no longer rely on the Federal High Court judgement to treat the five parties as deregistered.

Instead, the electoral commission must continue to recognise the following:

• their registration,

• their leadership structures (subject to any separate litigation),

• their constitutional rights to participate in electoral activities, and

• their eligibility to field candidates in future elections unless another valid court order says otherwise.

This is particularly significant because preparations for the 2027 elections, including coalition negotiations, party congresses and eventual candidate selection, are expected to intensify over the coming months.

READ NEXT: Gas cuts, mounting debts and Nigeria's power crisis: Why electricity generators say the lights could dim further

Yes. The Court of Appeal is not necessarily the final stop.

Any dissatisfied party may appeal to the Supreme Court if there are valid grounds of appeal under Nigerian law. 

Until such an appeal is filed and succeeds or a stay of execution is granted, the Court of Appeal's judgement remains the operative decision.

Although five parties benefited from the judgement, the ADC has attracted the greatest attention because of its growing national political profile.

Over the past year, the party has become the platform around which several opposition figures have sought to build a coalition ahead of the 2027 general elections. 

A successful deregistration would have created major legal uncertainty for that coalition.

Following the Court of Appeal's decision, former Vice President Atiku Abubakar welcomed the judgement, describing it as a landmark victory that removed legal obstacles to the ADC's participation in the next general elections. 

ADC National Chairman Senator David Mark also praised the ruling as a victory for democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law.

The ruling does not determine who will win the next election, but it changes the political playing field in several important ways.

First, it preserves political pluralism by ensuring that five registered parties remain eligible to operate.

Second, it allows the ADC and the other restored parties to continue membership drives, coalition discussions, fundraising, internal elections and candidate preparations without the immediate threat of deregistration.

Third, it provides greater certainty for voters, aspirants and party officials planning for 2027, at least unless the Supreme Court reaches a different conclusion in a future appeal.

Finally, the judgement reinforces an important constitutional principle: decisions affecting the existence of political parties must follow due legal process, and courts cannot make far-reaching orders where they lack jurisdiction or where the underlying suit is legally incompetent.