By Ibrahim Haruna
As Nigeria gradually approaches the 2027 general elections, a constitutional dispute currently before the Federal High Court in Abuja may substantially reshape the country’s political environment.
At the centre of the controversy is Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the provision empowering the Independent National Electoral Commission to deregister political parties that fail to satisfy prescribed constitutional electoral conditions.
Under the provision, INEC may deregister parties that fail to secure at least 25 per cent of votes in one state during a presidential election, fail to win seats in National or State Assembly elections, or otherwise fail to satisfy constitutional benchmarks required for continued recognition as political parties.
What initially appeared like a routine legal dispute has now evolved into a wider national conversation touching on constitutional supremacy, democratic inclusion, electoral discipline and the future of Nigeria’s multi party democracy.
The suit, filed by the Incorporated Trustees of National Forum of Former Legislators, seeks judicial interpretation compelling INEC to enforce Section 225A against certain political parties alleged to have failed constitutional electoral thresholds.
Listed as defendants are INEC, the Attorney General of the Federation, African Democratic Congress, Action Alliance, Action Peoples Party, Accord and the Zenith Labour Party.
Public attention intensified after reports emerged that the Attorney General of the Federation, though listed as a defendant, filed processes interpreted as substantially supportive of the constitutional arguments advanced by the plaintiff.
Expectedly, reactions followed across political and legal circles.
However, beyond the political anxieties surrounding the matter, many constitutional observers argue that the Attorney General deserves commendation rather than hostility for approaching the issue from the standpoint of constitutional responsibility.
Supporters of the AGF insist that as the nation’s Chief Law Officer and custodian of the Constitution, the Attorney General possesses both the authority and institutional obligation to take positions on constitutional interpretation, public interest and enforcement of extant laws.
According to them, constitutional questions cannot suddenly become untouchable merely because they generate political discomfort.
This perhaps explains why many civil society voices have criticised comments reportedly made by Zenith Labour Party National Chairman, Dan Nwanyanwu, accusing the Attorney General of “cooking up” the suit despite being a defendant in the matter.
Critics describe such remarks as reckless, defamatory and diversionary.
According to them, rather than dissipating energy attacking the Attorney General through sensational public accusations, affected political parties should focus on presenting strong constitutional arguments before the court.
To them, constitutional disputes are resolved through judicial interpretation and legal reasoning, not through media hostility against institutions.
Supporters of the suit insist that the real issue before the court is constitutional compliance and institutional credibility.
Their argument is straightforward. Once constitutional provisions prescribe conditions governing the continued existence of political parties, institutions established under the Constitution possess an obligation to enforce them.
Those supporting stricter enforcement argue that the unchecked proliferation of weak and inactive political parties has complicated election administration in Nigeria.
They point to overcrowded ballot papers, rising election costs, voter confusion and growing administrative burdens as some of the consequences of sustaining parties with little or no measurable electoral relevance.
According to this position, democracy should not merely be measured by the quantity of parties existing on paper but by the seriousness, viability and democratic participation of those political platforms.
Supporters of deregistration further argue that Section 225A was deliberately inserted into the Constitution to discourage indiscriminate proliferation of politically inactive parties.
Yet opponents of deregistration raise equally weighty concerns.
They fear that strict enforcement of Section 225A, particularly within a fragile and evolving democracy like Nigeria’s, could narrow democratic space and strengthen dominant political interests.
According to this school of thought, democracy flourishes through plurality, political diversity and preservation of alternative voices.
Critics also argue that many successful political movements globally began as fringe organisations before eventually becoming major national platforms.
For this reason, they insist that political parties should not always be judged solely by immediate electoral outcomes, especially within political environments already shaped by incumbency advantages and financial inequalities.
Some also fear that deregistration powers could someday become instruments of selective political intimidation.
Beyond politics however lies the deeper constitutional dilemma.
Should constitutional provisions be enforced strictly according to law or moderated by political sentiment and democratic anxieties?
Supporters of the suit insist that constitutional provisions cannot become optional merely because enforcement generates political discomfort. According to them, the Constitution remains the supreme legal framework binding on institutions, political actors and citizens alike.
Others however urge caution, arguing that constitutional interpretation must also take account of democratic inclusion and the dangers associated with shrinking political space.
That constitutional tension now sits squarely before the judiciary.
Can constitutional discipline coexist with democratic plurality?
Can electoral seriousness be maintained without undermining political inclusion?
These are the difficult constitutional questions now awaiting judicial determination.
With coalition talks and political realignments already intensifying ahead of 2027, the outcome of the suit could substantially reshape Nigeria’s political environment.
A strict interpretation of Section 225A may trigger mergers, alliances and political restructuring among smaller parties.
A broader interpretation favouring inclusion may however preserve Nigeria’s expansive multi party framework despite concerns about electoral efficiency.
Whichever direction the court eventually takes, the implications will be profound.
Ultimately, the judiciary’s responsibility is neither to satisfy political emotions nor protect partisan interests but to interpret the Constitution faithfully.
The case therefore goes beyond party deregistration.
It raises a more enduring national question about whether constitutional provisions should remain binding obligations or gradually become decorative texts ignored whenever enforcement becomes politically inconvenient.
Ibrahim Haruna writes from Kano.
