THE UNTOLD STORY OF THE NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS, PEACE MOVEMENT PARTY, AND THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT LOKOJA JUDGMENT -

Spread the love

*THE UNTOLD STORY OF THE NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS, PEACE MOVEMENT PARTY, AND THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT LOKOJA JUDGMENT*

_~ My Opinion_

_By Willie Amadi ✨_

The recent controversy arising from the reversal of the judgment delivered by Hon. Justice I.H. Dashem of the Federal High Court, Lokoja, in Suit No. FHC/LKJ/CS/49/2025 has dominated social media discourse and triggered varied interpretations by politicians and other interest groups.

Both camps have been vocal, but the National Democratic Congress [NDC] in particular has resorted to emotional blackmail against the Judge, INEC, and the APC, as if, were the roles reversed, they would not adopt a similar strategy for political survival. The NDC maintains that the Peace Movement Party [PMP] is not a registered political party and has been procured to frustrate it. It also argues that the presiding Judge was aware that the reversal confers no advantage on PMP, since party primaries have already been concluded in line with INEC’s timetable.

Meanwhile, the relatively unknown Peace Movement Party is crying foul at this late stage of the processes leading to the 2027 general elections. Political analysts believe the action is politically contrived and sponsored by the ruling party to foist a weakened and diminished opposition at the polls.

*The facts behind the hullabaloo*

The simple truth is that NDC sued INEC after the Commission refused its registration because its proposed logo conflicted with that of an earlier applicant — the Peace Movement Party — which was already undergoing the statutory process of registration as a political party.

However, while the matter was in court, PMP was not joined as a party to the suit. In its counter-affidavit, INEC disclosed that PMP had earlier submitted the same logo in an application then under consideration. The Court, and the NDC, did not deem it necessary, under the fundamental doctrine of fair hearing, to order a joinder. It proceeded to deliver judgment and ordered INEC to register NDC with the logo in dispute. INEC complied, but marked the party on its portal as “registered by court order.”

NDC therefore appeared on the political scene as a registered party with that logo, not through INEC’s usual diligent registration process, but by court order, despite having circumvented the Commission’s parameters and templates. INEC remains the independent institution solely charged with the registration of political parties in Nigeria.

*PMP’s application to set aside the judgment*

In June 2026, PMP brought an action to set aside the Federal High Court Lokoja judgment on the ground of denial of fair hearing. It argued that the Court ignored INEC’s counter-affidavit alleging that an association, the Peace Movement Party, seeking registration, had already submitted the same logo before NDC.

PMP is therefore asking the Court to review or vary the earlier pronouncement, which it contends did not qualify as a valid judgment because it violated the fundamental rule of fair hearing. According to PMP, NDC was aware of the logo conflict with another applicant before INEC but proceeded nonetheless.

The present action seeks to cure the mischief occasioned by that judgment. PMP is merely asking the Court to admit and allow it to present its arguments and evidence on the logo, an opportunity it was clearly and unfairly denied when the matter was heard and decided in its absence.

*The legal position*

Under our law, where a party becomes aware of a conflicting interest of a third party, and that such interest will occasion miscarriage of justice if the third party is not notified of the pendency of the suit to enable it to enter an appearance and defend itself, any pronouncement, ruling, or judgment arising from such a conscious or unconscious omission can be reviewed or varied by the same court under the Rules.

It is trite law that parties whose interests will be affected must be given the opportunity to join. Otherwise, any decision reached in their absence is a nullity and a ground for reprimand by appellate courts.

*My View*

I believe this action by PMP is an automatic reversal of the quick gain by the National Democratic Congress, which had, albeit temporarily, become a refuge for displaced politicians seeking a party without blemish.

The current scenario being orchestrated by professional politicians with no second address is entirely self-serving. The truth is that the law has caught up with NDC over a judgment that ordered INEC to register it with a logo allegedly reserved for an association seeking registration as a political party.

The presiding Judge is therefore right to order INEC to cease further dealings with NDC pending the determination of PMP’s application to be heard under Order 8 Rule 10 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019. That Rule expressly empowers the Court to set aside or vary a default judgment on application by the affected party on just terms, where a good defence is shown and a satisfactory explanation is given for the default, with provision for extension of time where necessary.

*For the avoidance of doubt, the Court’s orders are as follows:*

– The application of the Affected Party/Applicant succeeds and is hereby granted.

– The judgment delivered by this Court on 10th December 2025 in Suit No. FHC/LKJ/CS/49/2025 is hereby set aside.

– Suit No. FHC/LKJ/CS/49/2025 shall revert to the stage it occupied immediately before the delivery of the judgment set aside herein.

– The parties shall be at liberty to take all necessary and permissible procedural steps under the Rules of this Court for the effectual determination of the substantive dispute.

– No order as to costs.

*What does this 6portend for NDC if the Court rules that the logo rightfully belongs to the Peace Movement Party?*

Your guess is as good as mine.