TDA Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Jibrin Okutepa, has criticized the June 2026 ruling delivered by Justice Isa Dashen of the Federal High Court in Lokoja.
The ruling had set aside an earlier judgment directing the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to register the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) as a political party.
In a detailed legal commentary, Okutepa questioned the basis upon which the court reversed its own December 2025 judgment.
He argued that the original order had been directed solely against INEC, which subsequently complied by registering the NDC.
Objection Over PMP’s Application
According to the senior lawyer, the association known as the Peace Movement Party (PMP), which later challenged the judgment, was not a party to the original suit despite disputes surrounding political party logos.
Okutepa noted that the application filed on May 5, 2026, contained two principal requests:
- an application for an extension of time to seek the setting aside of the December 2025 judgment and,
- a request that the judgment itself be set aside.
He argued that although Justice Dashen listed both prayers in the ruling, the court failed to determine the first request relating to the extension of time before proceeding to set aside the earlier judgment.
Supreme Court Authorities Allegedly Ignored
The senior advocate maintained that established Nigerian law requires any applicant seeking to set aside a judgment entered in their absence to satisfy two mandatory conditions before the court may exercise its discretion.
According to Okutepa, an applicant must:
- Provide good and substantial reasons for failing to appear or defend the original action.
- Demonstrate a prima facie defence on the merits by disclosing triable issues.
He emphasized that the two conditions are conjunctive rather than disjunctive, meaning both must be satisfied simultaneously.
To support his position, Okutepa cited several decisions of the Supreme Court, including Williams v. Hope Rising Voluntary Funds Society, Nalsa & Team Associates v. NNPC, Skenconsult (Nig.) Ltd. v. Ukey, A.C.B. Plc v. Losada (Nig.) Ltd., and Macaulay v. NAL Merchant Bank Ltd.
All of them, he said, consistently require applicants to explain their default and demonstrate a viable defence before a regular judgment can be set aside.
Questions Over Delay in Challenging Judgment
Okutepa further questioned why the court did not examine the reason for the delay before entertaining the application.
He argued that the December 2025 judgment had already been executed by INEC through the registration of the NDC.
Yet, he noted, no judicial findings were made explaining why the applicants waited until May 2026 to seek its reversal.
“The court did not give us the opportunity to know what informed its reasons to set aside the judgment when there is no finding on the point why the applicants waited till May 2026 before they applied to set aside the judgment,” he stated.
He concluded by suggesting that “there are more the public did not know” about the circumstances surrounding the proceedings.
Political Significance
The legal controversy comes amid heightened political interest following reports that former Anambra State Governor Peter Obi joined the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) on May 3, 2026.
Justice Dashen’s ruling has ordered a fresh hearing involving all interested parties.
The order further intensifying legal and political debates over political party registration procedures and electoral participation ahead of future elections.
Reacting to Okutepa’s application, an “X” user remarked:
“The public knows everything. The evil APC and Tinubu do not want Peter Obi on the ballot.
“Had Obi remained in ADC, this matter will never come up. This is the hands of Esau but the voice of Jacob.”
Another user stated:
“It is clear that the Nigerian judiciary now has Lifu the 2nd. Injustice is very painful.
“But injustice combined with corruption is depressing. These hatchet judges must desist.
“Enough is enough!”
