Ardo faults INEC, judiciary over NDC recognition, calls it ‘Systemic breach’

Michael Olumide

Controversy surrounding the registration of the Nigerian Democratic Congress (NDC) has taken a sharper legal and political turn, as promoter of the All Democratic Alliance (ADA), Dr. Umar Ardo, launched a scathing attack on both the judiciary and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), describing the process that led to the party’s recognition as “a judicial murder.”

Speaking during an appearance on Frontline, a current affairs programme on Eagle 102.5 FM in Ilese-Ijebu, Ogun State, Ardo argued that the issue goes far beyond administrative disagreement, insisting that it represents a fundamental breach of constitutional procedure governing political party registration in Nigeria.

According to him, the process of registering a political party is clearly defined by law and must follow a structured sequence beginning with a formal declaration of intent and culminating in strict compliance with regulatory requirements before any judicial intervention can arise.

“This is not just an irregularity,” he said. “There was absolutely nothing—no receipt, no documents, no compliance—yet judgment was given. Political party registration in Nigeria is not arbitrary; it is guided by law and INEC regulations that must be followed step by step.”

Ardo explained that the first stage involves submitting a formal letter of intent to INEC, signed by the association’s leadership, stating its name, acronym, logo, and intention to become a political party. He noted that INEC is expected to acknowledge such submissions within 48 hours and conduct a review over a period of about 60 days to ensure there are no conflicts with existing political entities.

He stressed that clearance at this stage does not amount to registration but merely grants applicants the right to proceed to the next phase.

The substantive phase of registration, he said, is far more rigorous and involves meeting over two dozen requirements, including payment of administrative fees, submission of organisational documents, and uploading detailed information about party executives across multiple states via INEC’s digital portal.

“You must upload your constitution, manifesto, national executive committee members across the required states, their contact details, and proof of a national headquarters in Abuja,” he explained.

“There are about 26 requirements in total. This is clearly provided for in the constitution, the Electoral Act, and INEC guidelines.”

Ardo, however, alleged that the NDC failed to progress beyond the initial stage of intent, claiming that it neither fulfilled the documentation requirements nor paid the stipulated fees before the matter was taken to court.

He further claimed that INEC had earlier raised objections to the party’s logo, citing similarities with that of another political association, but instead of resolving the issue administratively, the promoters opted for litigation.

“Rather than comply with INEC’s directive or make corrections, they went to court prematurely,” he said.

Ardo also questioned the legal basis of the Federal High Court ruling in Lokoja, which reportedly compelled INEC to proceed with the party’s registration. He argued that the case was filed outside the statutory timeframe allowed under the Electoral Act.

“The law gives you 14 days to challenge INEC’s decision, but this case was filed nearly two months later,” he said. “It was statute-barred, yet the court ignored that and proceeded.”

He expressed concern over the speed of the judgment, noting that the ruling was delivered in less than 33 days despite the complexity typically associated with electoral matters.

Drawing further criticism, Ardo accused INEC of publishing names of party officials that, according to him, were not part of any court directive.

“There is no court order listing those names,” he alleged. “Publishing them amounts to administrative misrepresentation. You cannot attribute something to a court that does not exist.”

While acknowledging that INEC is bound to obey court orders, Ardo maintained that the commission had the option of appealing the judgment instead of implementing it outright.

“In the face of obvious procedural flaws, INEC should have approached the Court of Appeal,” he said.

He also raised questions over the choice of Lokoja as the venue for filing the case instead of Abuja, where INEC’s headquarters is located, suggesting that such jurisdictional decisions deserve scrutiny.

Responding to claims that the party’s recognition was based on an earlier acknowledgment by INEC in 2017, Ardo dismissed the argument, insisting that such approvals have validity limits and cannot be revived years later.

“You cannot resurrect an expired process,” he said, adding that INEC guidelines clearly define timelines for compliance.

On the broader implications, Ardo warned that allowing such precedents could erode the integrity of Nigeria’s electoral system and weaken public confidence in democratic institutions.

“If this is allowed to stand, then the entire process becomes meaningless,” he said. “Anybody can simply write a letter and go to court. That undermines both INEC and the judiciary.”

He confirmed that consultations are ongoing with senior legal practitioners, including Senior Advocates of Nigeria, to explore possible legal options, including an appeal, even if it requires seeking the court’s permission to file out of time.

Framing his intervention as a matter of principle rather than political rivalry, Ardo insisted that his position is driven by a desire to protect democratic norms.

“I am not doing this because I was denied registration,” he said. “I am doing this because what is right must be defended. If we fail to stand for due process, we risk destroying the very institutions that sustain our democracy.”