The Supreme Court has upheld the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which declared the purported de-registration of Youth Party (YP) illegal, null and void.

The apex court, in a unanimous judgment, dismissed the appeal filed by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and held that YP is a registered political party, eligible to participate in the 2023 elections.

Led by Justice Uwani Musa Abba Aji, the court upheld the decision of the lower courts, which “found the action of the appellant very reprehensive.”

YP had, through its counsel, Chief Bolaji Ayorinde (SAN), urged the apex court to dismiss the appeal and uphold the judgment of the lower courts.

The judgment at the lower courts was based on INEC’s failure to register the party within the time stipulated in the law and preventing it from participating in elections.

INEC had failed to register the party after it got a judgment against it in FHC/ABJ/CS/221/2017 between Chukwudi Adiukwu and Ors V. INEC, delivered on October 18, 2017.

The commission, eventually, complied with the decision on August 14, 2018, less than five days to the commencement of party primaries in 2018.
Besides, the electoral umpire also de-registered the party, while both parties were before the Federal High Court over the issue.

Furthermore, INEC is currently refusing to list YP on its website as a registered party or allow it to participate in any election, even in the face of the aforesaid judgment, which had not been set aside or stayed.

Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court had, in his judgment, held that “the defendant is not above the law. No person or parties to an action is allowed to resort to self help when an action is pending in court.”

The court held that the defendant’s power, pursuant to Section 225A (b) & (c) of the 1999 Constitution (as altered) to de-register a political party, does not justify the action of the defendant, while the case was pending before the lower court.

The court held: “The defendant must understand that the constitution is not an author of confusion. I condemn the action of the defendant as a wrong exercise of might. Therefore, de-registration of the plaintiff during the pendency of this action by the defendant is illegal, null and void, and liable to be set aside. Consequently, I, hereby, make an order setting aside the de-registration of the plaintiff.”