TDA legal practitioner, Malachy Odo, has described the Federal High Court’s ruling against the registration of the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) as “brazen, chaotic, and never been heard of” since Nigeria adopted English law in 1900.
His sharp criticism underscores the unprecedented nature of Justice Isa H. Dashen’s decision to set aside his own earlier judgment, which had ordered INEC to register the NDC.
Odo argues that the intervention of the Peace Movement Party (PMP)—a body that was neither a party to the original suit nor formally joined in the proceedings—has created a constitutional and procedural mess that undermines the credibility of Nigeria’s judicial system.
According to Odo, the ruling represents a dangerous precedent where a court effectively sat on appeal over its own judgment without proper joinder of the applicant.
Several legal practitioners have adopted a similar stance.
Analysis of the Federal High Court Ruling
- Suit No.: FHC/LKJ/CS/49/2025
- Court: Federal High Court of Nigeria, Lokoja Judicial Division
- Presiding Judge: Hon. Justice Isa H. Dashen
- Date of Ruling: 26th June 2026
Introduction: A Judicial Earthquake
The ruling delivered by Justice Isa H. Dashen on 26th June 2026 has sent shockwaves through Nigeria’s legal and political establishment.
By setting aside his own earlier judgment that had ordered the registration of the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC), the Court has reopened the controversy surrounding political party registration.
It has also raised profound questions about judicial consistency, constitutional safeguards, and the credibility of Nigeria’s electoral process.
This report dissects the ruling, exposing its strengths, contradictions, and the chaos it has unleashed.
Case Overview
The original judgment of 10th December 2025 had been a victory for the NDC, compelling INEC to register them as a political party despite objections over their logo.
However, the Peace Movement Party (PMP), which was not a party to the proceedings, later intervened claiming prior ownership of the disputed “two-finger victory logo.”
Their application to set aside the judgment was granted, effectively nullifying NDC’s registration.
The Court’s Reasoning
Justice Dashen anchored his ruling on three pillars:
- Functus Officio Doctrine
- Ordinarily, a court cannot revisit its own final judgment. Yet, Dashen invoked the exception: judgments obtained by fraud, suppression of material facts, or breach of fair hearing can be set aside. This was the legal escape hatch.
- Fair Hearing (Section 36(1) of the Constitution)
- The Court held that PMP had a direct, substantial interest in the matter since their prior submission of the disputed logo was central to INEC’s refusal of NDC’s registration. Denying PMP a hearing amounted to a constitutional violation.
- Necessary Party Principle
- The Court emphasized that PMP was a necessary party whose interests were directly affected. Their exclusion rendered the proceedings defective.
Critical Findings
- Material Non-Disclosure:
INEC’s affidavit confirmed PMP submitted the logo first, yet this fact was not disclosed during the original proceedings.
- Breach of Fair Hearing:
PMP’s exclusion meant their rights were trampled upon.
- Nullity of Proceedings:
The Court distinguished between reviewing the merits of its judgment and examining its constitutional validity.
The latter, it said, justified setting aside the ruling.
Strengths of the Ruling
Doctrinal Clarity: Dashen correctly applied the principle that fair hearing is sacrosanct and cannot be compromised.
Evidence-Based: Reliance on INEC’s affidavit gave the ruling a factual backbone.
Constitutional Fidelity: The Court prioritized fundamental rights over procedural rigidity.
Weaknesses and Controversies
Yet, the ruling is riddled with contradictions and practical absurdities:
- Judicial Overreach: Critics argue Dashen effectively sat on appeal over his own judgment. This undermines the finality of judicial decisions and sets a dangerous precedent.
- Administrative Chaos: NDC had already been registered and issued a certificate. Setting aside the judgment throws INEC into disarray and destabilizes political actors who relied on NDC’s status.
- Delay: PMP’s application came over five months after the original judgment. Though the Court excused the delay, this leniency raises suspicions of selective justice.
- Failure to Join PMP: Astonishingly, while setting aside the judgment, the Court did not expressly order PMP’s joinder in the suit. This omission means PMP could simply “walk away” after achieving their purpose, leaving NDC stranded in limbo.
Reactions
Legal commentators have been scathing.
Malachy Odo described the ruling as “worse than I had thought”.
He noted that PMP was not even joined to the suit yet succeeded in overturning a final judgment.
He likened the situation to judicial malpractice, recalling a Delhi High Court case where a judge was ordered back to law school for bypassing legal processes.
He wrote: “I have now read the CTC of the Judgment setting aside the registration of NDC and it is worse than I had thought.
“The unregistered Association known as Peace Movement Party is not a party to the suit and declared no interest to even join the suit yet the Court went ahead to set aside it’s own Judgment on their application!
“The Court then also failed to make any express order joining them in the said suit which means that PMP can and will simply “walk away” from the action having achieved their purpose.
“In the end what we have is a case where a Judge decided to sit on Appeal over its own Judgment and for compelling reason.
“What the Judge has done in this matter has never been heard of since Nigeria received English Law in 1900.”
Implications
- NDC’s Future: Their registration is now in jeopardy.
INEC may be compelled to de-register them, raising questions about the validity of actions taken under their banner.
- PMP’s Leverage: PMP now has a seat at the table, potentially reshaping the political landscape.
- INEC’s Burden: The Commission must navigate the quagmire of conflicting logo claims and ensure compliance with constitutional standards.
- Judicial Integrity: The ruling risks eroding public confidence in the judiciary’s ability to deliver final, predictable justice.
Conclusion: A Scandalous Precedent
Justice Dashen’s ruling is a paradox.
It is legally indefensible as it is institutionally destabilizing.
By prioritizing fair hearing, the Court upheld constitutional principles.
Yet by failing to join PMP and by unsettling an already implemented judgment, it plunged Nigeria’s political system into anarchy.
This case will likely be remembered not for its doctrinal brilliance but for the chaos it unleashed—a cautionary tale of how judicial interventions, even if well-intentioned, can destabilize democratic processes.
