The Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal has been urged to overturn a Federal High Court judgment that directed the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to register the All Democratic Alliance (ADA) as a political party ahead of the 2027 general elections.
The appeal, filed on Tuesday by Dr. Umar Ardo, challenges the decision of the Federal High Court, which ordered INEC to release the association’s access code to another faction led by Chief Akin Ricketts.
Ardo, who had initially received the access code from INEC before his application to register the ADA was rejected, argued that the lower court’s ruling was legally flawed and resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
Chief Akin Ricketts and Dr. Aminu Ahmed were listed as the first and second respondents in the appeal, while INEC was named as the third respondent.
In the six-ground appeal, Ardo contended that Justice Peter Lifu erred in law by ruling that the case brought by the respondents was not statute-barred under Section 76 of the Electoral Act 2022.
According to him, the suit was instituted on January 16, well beyond the 14-day period stipulated by the Electoral Act for such actions.
He maintained that the trial court ignored the statutory limitation period, rendering the judgment legally unsustainable.
Ardo further argued that the lower court failed to recognise that the suit constituted an abuse of court process because a similar matter involving the same parties and identical reliefs was already pending before the courts.
He explained that an earlier case marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2788/2025, which also sought the registration of the ADA as a political party, had already been filed and was currently the subject of an appeal.
According to the appellant, the subsequent action filed by Ricketts and Ahmed amounted to forum shopping and an attempt to bypass the appellate process.
“The appellant and some other members of ADA had earlier filed a suit seeking the same relief, registration of the All Democratic Alliance as a political party, a suit to which the 1st and 2nd respondents were also parties, and that suit is currently on appeal.
“The subsequent filing of this suit by the 1st and 2nd respondents, seeking the same relief against the same defendant (INEC) in respect of the same subject matter, constitutes a classic abuse of court process.
“The doctrine of abuse of court process is designed to prevent multiplicity of actions, vexatious litigation, and the undermining of pending appeals.
“The lower court failed to consider that the 1st and 2nd respondents were effectively forum shopping and attempting to circumvent the appellate process by filing a fresh suit rather than awaiting the outcome of the appellant’s suit FHC/ABJ/CS/2788/2025.
“The lower court’s refusal to recognise the abuse of process encourages duplication of judicial resources and creates the risk of conflicting judgments on the same subject matter.”
Ardo also challenged the legal standing of Chief Ricketts, insisting that he had already been removed as the association’s Pro Tem National Chairman and that his name had been deleted from its membership register.
He argued that someone who was no longer recognised as a member or leader of the association lacked the authority to institute legal proceedings on its behalf.
“The trial court erred in law and misdirected itself on the facts when it failed to evaluate and give due evidential weight to the evidence that the 1st respondent had been deposed as Pro Tem National Chairman of the All Democratic Alliance, and that his name was not on the association’s list of members, thereby leaving him without the requisite locus standi to maintain the action.
“A person who is not a member of an association, and who has been removed from its leadership, lacks the legal capacity to sue on behalf of that association.”
The appellant further criticised the trial court for allegedly interfering in the internal affairs of the association by directing INEC to issue a fresh access code to the respondents and reopen its portal for a new application.
He argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to invalidate the association’s leadership decisions and internal resolutions.
According to the appeal, the lower court also failed to properly evaluate minutes of meetings that documented changes in the association’s leadership.
Ardo urged the Court of Appeal to nullify the Federal High Court judgment and award costs against the respondents jointly and severally.
The dispute stems from INEC’s announcement in October 2025 that ADA was among 14 associations that successfully completed the initial stage of the political party registration process by uploading the required documentation.
Although the commission cleared ADA and seven other associations to proceed to the next stage, members of the Ricketts-led faction approached the court, alleging that INEC mistakenly issued the access code to Ardo instead of the association’s recognised leadership.
They asked the court to compel INEC to release the code to them, invalidate every document uploaded by Ardo, register the association as a political party and extend deadlines for submitting the party’s membership register and candidates.
In his ruling, Justice Lifu held that INEC acted unlawfully by issuing the access code to Ardo and declared the action null and void.
The judge ordered the electoral commission to reopen its registration portal for one week to enable the plaintiffs upload the required documents and directed INEC to issue the access code to them within 72 hours.
The court also invalidated every action previously taken on behalf of the association by Ardo during the registration process.
