The Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) has thrown its weight behind a suit seeking the deregistration of some political parties, including the African Democratic Congress (ADC), over alleged constitutional breaches.
The position of the AGF was contained in a notice filed before the Federal High Court in Abuja in suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/2637/2026, according to documents obtained from Tribune Online.
The defendants in the suit are the Independent National Electoral Commission, the Attorney General of the Federation, 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, listed as the second defendant, said it admitted the plaintiff’s suit “to the extent of its constitutional responsibility.”
The AGF stated that it was “the custodian and protector of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria” and had 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 further argued that by virtue of Section 150(1) of the Constitution, it was responsible for the execution of laws, including the Electoral Act regulating elections in the country.
The notice stated, “The 2nd Defendant has 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.”
It added that the office of the AGF was “enjoined to collaborate with other government agencies and citizens to ensure that laws are effectively enforced.”
According to the filing, supporting the suit aligned with the constitutional mandate of the AGF in “protection of the provisions of the Constitution.”
The AGF also argued that access to justice remained a fundamental aspect of democracy, adding that many citizens lacked 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 violation of their constitutional rights,” the notice stated.
The AGF maintained that supporting the case would help 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 stated.
The AGF further submitted that the plaintiff possessed “sufficient interest to question constitutional infractions in the electoral system.”
It stated that Section 225A of the Constitution was introduced to address ballot paper clogging which has complicated the voting process.
The notice argued that INEC had “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.”
According to the AGF, “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 added that “any failure or refusal” by INEC to deregister the affected political parties constituted “a continuing breach of constitutional duty” that could be challenged through public interest litigation.
The case is part of a fresh legal battle over the status of political parties and the powers of INEC under the Constitution and Electoral Act.
