This post has already been read at least 11164 times!
The Coalition of Civil Society Groups for Peace, Security, Good Governance, Equity and Justice has called on the Federal High Court in Abuja to expedite proceedings in a suit seeking constitutional interpretation regarding the continued registration of certain political parties in Nigeria, insisting that the matter carries far-reaching implications for the country’s democratic future ahead of the 2027 general elections.
In a strongly worded press statement signed by Comrade James Okoronkwo, the coalition argued that the case before the court raises fundamental constitutional questions bordering on electoral integrity, democratic accountability and the enforcement of provisions contained in the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended.
The coalition particularly stressed the importance of Section 225A of the Constitution, which provides conditions under which political parties may be deregistered, insisting that the constitutional provision cannot be ignored or treated as symbolic.
According to the group, constitutional provisions are binding legal obligations meant to regulate institutions and preserve democratic order, warning that selective obedience to constitutional requirements could weaken the nation’s democratic foundation.
“Section 225A cannot be treated as a decorative constitutional provision existing only in theory without practical enforcement,” the coalition declared, adding that the Constitution was not designed to contain ornamental provisions that lack practical effect.
The organisation further maintained that the constitutional thresholds guiding the continued existence of political parties were deliberately introduced to discourage the proliferation of inactive political platforms with little or no electoral participation or democratic relevance.
The coalition observed that the growing number of political parties with minimal electoral impact has continued to complicate election administration in Nigeria by increasing the size of ballot papers, inflating public expenditure and creating confusion for voters during elections.
While affirming its support for democracy, political pluralism and freedom of association, the coalition argued that democratic freedoms must still operate within the framework established by the Constitution and existing electoral laws.
“It is important that Nigerians understand that this constitutional debate is not necessarily an attack on democracy or opposition politics,” the coalition stated.
It added that many democracies across the world establish minimum electoral performance thresholds for political parties in order to preserve administrative efficiency, electoral seriousness and institutional credibility.
The coalition also weighed in on the reported position of the Attorney General of the Federation in the matter, describing it as constitutionally significant and worthy of commendation.
According to the statement, the Attorney General demonstrated fidelity to constitutional principles above partisan or political considerations by reportedly taking a constitutional position on the matter before the court.
The group commended the Attorney General “for understanding his responsibilities as the country’s Chief Law Officer and the custodian of the 1999 Constitution and carrying the burden gracefully.”
At the same time, the coalition cautioned the National Chairman of the Zenith Labour Party, Dan Nwanyanwu, against making what it described as reckless and unsubstantiated allegations against the Attorney General of the Federation.
The coalition was reacting to alleged claims credited to Nwanyanwu suggesting that the Attorney General “cooked up” the suit despite being a defendant in the matter before the court.
Describing the allegations as irresponsible and damaging to public confidence in constitutional institutions, the coalition argued that public discourse on sensitive constitutional matters should not degenerate into sensationalism and baseless accusations.
“It is reckless and utterly irresponsible for anyone to make serious allegations of manipulation against the Attorney General of the Federation without credible evidence merely because the AGF took a constitutional position on a matter before the court,” the coalition stated.
The organisation insisted that the Attorney General, as the nation’s Chief Law Officer and custodian of the Constitution, possesses the constitutional responsibility to take positions on issues relating to constitutional interpretation, public interest and enforcement of extant laws.
“It is therefore neither strange nor improper for the Attorney General of the Federation to respond to a matter in which he is a party before a competent court of law,” the coalition added.
The coalition further warned that resorting to defamatory insinuations instead of legal arguments could weaken public confidence in democratic engagement and the judicial process.
Calling for accelerated hearing of the suit, the group urged the judiciary to recognise the historic significance of the matter and provide constitutional clarity capable of shaping Nigeria’s electoral landscape ahead of the 2027 elections.
According to the coalition, the eventual decision of the court must reinforce constitutionalism, deepen public confidence in democratic institutions and affirm that no provision of the Constitution is redundant.
“The judiciary now has a historic opportunity to provide constitutional clarity on a matter capable of shaping the future of Nigeria’s electoral landscape,” the statement concluded.
This post has already been read at least 11164 times!
About the Author
