Unuevbo TV
"They Cannot Even Win Councillorship": AGF Fagbemi Backs Former Lawmakers' Plot to Obliterate ADC, Accord and Three Others as 'Non‑Performing Parties' — Kwankwaso Cites Deregistration Threat as Reason for Exit
It is not every day that a defendant in a lawsuit reads the plaintiff's complaint, concludes that the plaintiff is right, and files an affidavit urging the court to grant everything the plaintiff has asked for. Yet that is precisely what happened on Wednesday, 30 April 2026, when the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Prince Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), through a team of lawyers led by Professor J. O. Olatoke (SAN), deposited a filing at the Federal High Court in Abuja that crossed the Rubicon from legal defence to constitutional offensive. The AGF — originally named as the second defendant in suit FHC/ABJ/CS/2637/2026, a public interest action brought by the Incorporated Trustees of the National Forum of Former Legislators (NFFL) — admitted the plaintiff's case "to the extent of its constitutional responsibility" and proceeded to argue, in language that left no ambiguity, that the Independent National Electoral Commission (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." The parties he believes should be erased from Nigeria's electoral map: the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Action Alliance (AA), Action Peoples Party (APP), Accord Party, and Zenith Labour Party (ZLP).
The timing of the AGF's intervention could hardly be more consequential — or more contested. It arrived on the same Thursday that the Supreme Court delivered its landmark judgments restoring the David Mark-led ADC leadership and nullifying the PDP's Ibadan convention; as news of the apex court ruling was still ricocheting through the political class, Fagbemi's affidavit was quietly entered into the court record at the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court before Justice Peter Lifu. Less than seventy-two hours later, on Sunday, 3 May, both Peter Obi and Rabiu Kwankwaso would announce their resignations from the ADC and their formal enrolment in the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC). Kwankwaso, in his own statement explaining the decision, cited — alongside the Supreme Court's judgment — "moves by the Attorney General of the Federation to deregister the ADC" as a factor that had left the party in what he described as "a precarious position." Within a single week, the ADC had been simultaneously revived by the Supreme Court, targeted for extinction by the AGF, and abandoned by two of its three most powerful electoral assets. The convergence of these events is not a coincidence; it is a portrait of a political party system under assault from multiple directions simultaneously, and of an opposition struggling to find a platform that can survive the combined pressures of litigation, deregistration, and mass defection.
The AGF's Constitutional Argument: Why INEC "Has No Residual Discretion"
The legal architecture of the AGF's intervention rests on four pillars, each of which he articulated in his affidavit. The first is textual: Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), introduced under the Fourth Amendment specifically to address ballot congestion, prescribes electoral performance thresholds that political parties must meet to retain their registration. The second is interpretive: the use of the word "shall" in the relevant constitutional and statutory provisions imposes a mandatory, non-discretionary duty on INEC — meaning that the electoral commission is not merely permitted to deregister underperforming parties but is constitutionally obliged to do so. The third is consequential: the continued existence of parties that have failed to meet the minimum thresholds "inflates the ballots, burdens public funds, complicates election administration, and undermines the constitutional intention." The fourth is jurisdictional: the AGF, as the chief law officer of the federation, has both the standing and the duty to support actions that enforce 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 stated.
What makes the AGF's position particularly striking is not its legal reasoning — Section 225A is, after all, clear — but its procedural posture. The AGF was named as a defendant in the suit, alongside INEC. The expected response would have been a defence of the electoral commission's discretion to determine which parties are deregistered and when. Instead, Fagbemi aligned himself entirely with the plaintiffs, declaring that "unless the court intervenes, INEC would continue to act in breach of its constitutional duty" and urging the court to grant all the reliefs sought in the originating summons. He argued that INEC is "acting in breach of its constitutional duty by retaining such parties," that "the continued existence of non‑performing political parties will inflate the ballots, burden public funds, complicate election administration and undermine the constitutional intention behind Section 225A," and that the AGF's office is "enjoined to collaborate with other government agencies and citizens to ensure that laws are effectively enforced". The submission has drawn sharp criticism from some legal practitioners. Barrister Emeka Iheonu, a Lagos-based lawyer, argued in an interview with Sunday Independent that "the AGF has no power to suo motu compel or ask the court to compel INEC to deregister a party" and that "the court has no jurisdiction to grant such an application". But Fagbemi's filing does not claim the power to compel INEC directly; it claims the power — and the duty — to support a suit that asks the court to interpret the Constitution, a distinction that may prove decisive when Justice Lifu rules on the matter later this month.
The Plaintiffs: Who Are the National Forum of Former Legislators — and What Do They Want?
The suit was not initiated by the AGF. It was filed by the Incorporated Trustees of the National Forum of Former Legislators (NFFL), a civil society organisation composed of former federal and state lawmakers, represented by Senior Advocate of Nigeria Yakubu Ruba. The originating summons, deposited by NFFL Chairman of the Board of Trustees and National Coordinator, Hon. Igbokwe Raphael Nnanna, alleges that the five targeted political parties have "not won any elective seats at any level of government — presidential, governorship, National Assembly, state assembly, chairmanship, or councillorship" and have failed to "secure the constitutionally required 25 per cent of votes in at least one state during presidential elections, nor achieve representation across the country's 8,809 wards, 774 local government areas, 36 states, and the Federal Capital Territory". The plaintiffs further argued that INEC's continued recognition of the parties violates constitutional provisions and undermines electoral integrity. They contended that the parties failed to meet the performance thresholds required under Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution and the Electoral Act 2022.
The reliefs sought are sweeping: a declaration that INEC is constitutionally bound to deregister the parties; an order compelling INEC to do so; an order restraining the parties from participating in future elections or engaging in political activities such as campaigns, rallies, and primaries; and a further order preventing INEC from recognising or dealing with the parties unless they comply with constitutional requirements. The plaintiffs insist that INEC must not be allowed to permit the impacted parties to run in the 2027 general elections, which they say would "clog ballot papers, overburden administrative resources, and potentially deceive voters". The case was initially filed in 2025 and originally targeted only the ADC, but was subsequently amended to include the four other parties, with the originating summons formally entered as FHC/ABJ/CS/2637/2026. The matter was adjourned last week by Justice Lifu until early May for hearing, meaning the coming days could produce a ruling that reshapes the ballot for 2027.
The Constitutional Threshold: What Section 225A Actually Requires
To understand why the suit matters — and why the AGF's alignment with it is so significant — one must understand what Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) actually says. Introduced under the Fourth Amendment to address the proliferation of political parties that had made ballot papers unwieldy and elections administratively burdensome, the provision empowers INEC to deregister political parties that fail to meet minimum performance benchmarks. The key thresholds, reinforced by Section 75(4) of the Electoral Act 2022, include: winning at least 25 per cent of the votes cast in one state of the federation in a presidential election; winning at least one elective seat at the national, state, or local government level; or securing representation across a specified number of wards, local government areas, and states.
The plaintiffs in FHC/ABJ/CS/2637/2026 contend that the ADC, AA, APP, Accord, and ZLP have met none of these benchmarks. They performed poorly in the 2023 general elections and have fared no better in subsequent by-elections, failing to win seats across key tiers of government. The forum warned that unless restrained by the court, INEC may allow the affected parties to participate in the 2027 general elections, thereby clogging ballot papers, overstretching administrative resources, and potentially misleading voters. Whether the court accepts this argument will depend on its interpretation of the constitutional language and the factual record of each party's electoral performance — a record that, for at least some of the targeted parties, may not be as straightforward as the plaintiffs suggest. The ADC, for instance, has undergone at least two name changes and structural reorganisations in the past decade, raising questions about whether its current iteration is the same legal entity as the one that contested previous elections. These are questions that Justice Lifu will need to resolve in the weeks ahead.
The Kwankwaso Connection: How the Deregistration Threat Accelerated the Opposition Exodus
The AGF's intervention did not occur in a political vacuum. On the same Sunday that Obi and Kwankwaso formally enrolled in the NDC, Kwankwaso released a statement that explicitly linked the deregistration threat to his departure from the ADC. The former Kano governor pointed to "a Federal High Court ruling that invalidated the party's recent convention, as well as moves by the Attorney General of the Federation to deregister the ADC" as factors that had created what he called "a precarious position" for the party. He further revealed that the Attorney General of the Federation had approached the court seeking the deregistration of the party, "a development he said had worsened" the uncertainty within the ADC. The Premium Times analysis of the ADC crisis, published on 3 May, identified the AGF's deregistration push as one of several "additional threats" facing the party, alongside "ongoing convention disputes, Kano-based litigations, questions over executive legitimacy".
This intersection — a legal threat to a party's existence coinciding with the departure of that party's most electorally valuable figures — is not accidental. Kwankwaso's reference to deregistration in his exit statement transforms what might otherwise have been presented as a purely political decision (the search for a "more stable platform") into something closer to a survival strategy: an acknowledgment that remaining in a party that the AGF has asked the court to obliterate is not merely risky but potentially futile. If the Federal High Court grants the reliefs sought in FHC/ABJ/CS/2637/2026, the ADC will cease to exist as a registered political party — and anyone still registered as its member when that judgment is delivered will have no party to contest. The defection of Obi and Kwankwaso, in this context, is not merely a political realignment; it is a legal evacuation. They are leaving a building that the Attorney General of the Federation has asked the courts to demolish. The question now is whether the building will still be standing when the 2027 elections arrive — and whether anyone will be left inside it.
A Legal Battle That Could Reshape the Ballot
The AGF's decision to support the deregistration of five political parties — including the ADC, which until Sunday was the principal vehicle for the opposition's most ambitious coalition since 2014 — is not merely a legal manoeuvre; it is a political intervention of the highest order, one that will be debated for years regardless of how Justice Lifu rules. The plaintiffs have made their case: that the Constitution is clear, that the thresholds are mandatory, and that parties that cannot win a single councillorship seat should not be permitted to clutter the ballot or drain public resources. The AGF has made his: that as the chief law officer of the federation, he is duty-bound to support actions that enforce constitutional provisions, and that the continued existence of non-performing parties "inflates the ballots, burdens public funds, complicates election administration and undermines the constitutional intention." The opposition has made its own case — not in court filings but in the exodus of its most prominent figures, who have concluded that the risk of remaining in a targeted party is too great to bear. Justice Lifu will rule in the weeks ahead. His decision will determine not merely the fate of five political parties but the architecture of the electoral contest that will define Nigeria's democratic future in 2027.
Stay tuned to Unuevbo TV for continuing coverage of the legal battles reshaping Nigeria's political party landscape ahead of the 2027 elections.
© 2026 Unuevbo TV – All rights reserved. Republication only with permission.