The Federal Government has expressed support for a suit seeking the deregistration of some political parties, including the African Democratic Congress (ADC), over alleged constitutional breaches.
The position of the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) was contained in a notice filed before the Federal High Court in Abuja in suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/2637/2026.
The defendants in the suit are the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the AGF, the African Democratic Congress, Action Alliance, Action Peoples Party, Accord and Zenith Labour Party.
In the notice filed pursuant to Order 15 Rule 1 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019, the AGF, as the second defendant, said it admitted the plaintiff’s suit “to the extent of its constitutional responsibility.”
The AGF said it is “the custodian and protector of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria” and has a duty to support actions aimed at enforcing constitutional provisions.
“It is the constitutional responsibility of the Attorney General of the Federation to bring, defend or support any action for the observance of the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,” the filing read.
The AGF also argued that under Section 150(1) of the Constitution, it is responsible for the execution of laws, including the Electoral Act governing elections in the country.
“The 2nd Defendant has a dual role as both an advocate for the state and defender of citizen rights, must act in public interest in supporting the plaintiff’s case for the promotion of justice and ensure that laws are interpreted and applied correctly,” the notice stated.
It added that the office of the AGF is “enjoined to collaborate with other government agencies and citizens to ensure that laws are effectively enforced.”
According to the filing, supporting the suit aligns with the constitutional mandate of the AGF in the “protection of the provisions of the Constitution.”
The AGF further argued that access to justice remains a key component of democracy, noting that many citizens lack the means to challenge constitutional violations.
“The Attorney General’s support helps bridge the gap in facilitating access to justice for Plaintiffs who seek to challenge violations of their constitutional rights,” it stated.
It maintained that backing the case would reinforce constitutional supremacy and accountability.
“By backing Plaintiff herein, the 2nd Defendant contributes to the establishment of legal precedent that reinforces the supremacy of the Constitution, thereby fostering a culture of accountability and respect for the law,” the filing added.
The AGF also submitted that the plaintiff has “sufficient interest to question constitutional infractions in the electoral system.”
It said Section 225A of the Constitution was introduced to address ballot paper congestion, which has made voting more complex.
The notice further argued that INEC has “no residual discretion to retain the registration of political parties that have clearly failed to satisfy the minimum threshold prescribed under Section 225A of the Constitution.”
It added that “the continued existence of nonperforming political parties will inflate the ballots, burden public funds, complicate election administration and undermine the constitutional intention behind Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution.”
The AGF stated that any failure or refusal by INEC to deregister the affected parties amounts to “a continuing breach of constitutional duty” that can be challenged through public interest litigation.
The case is part of a fresh legal battle over the registration status of political parties and the powers of INEC under the Constitution and the Electoral Act.
