NDC - PMP LOGO CONTROVERSY: APC, INEC AND THE NIGERIAN JUDICIARY SHOULD REMEMBER HISTORY. Written by Alex Ter Adum, PhD

Alex Ter Adum PhD 

The ongoing controversies over the registration of political parties, particularly the disputes involving PMP v. INEC/NDC call for fidelity to established constitutional principles and precedent rather than judicial inconsistency.

Nigeria faced a similar controversy in 2013 when competing claims arose over the acronym "APC" between the proposed All Progressives Congress (APC) and another applicant the African People's Congress (APC). In the case before Justice Gabriel Kolawole of the Federal High Court Abuja, the court did not confer proprietary rights on the African People's Congress merely because it alleged that it had applied first, nor did it halt INEC's statutory functions. Rather, it allowed the legal process to run its course while respecting INEC's constitutional mandate to determine whether a proposed name, acronym, logo or symbol met the requirements of the law.INEC subsequently exercised its statutory discretion by registering the All Progressives Congress. The registration of the All Progressives Congress effectively extinguished the application of the African People's Congress. That was how the PDP under Jonathan, INEC and the judiciary allowed the issue of political parties name conflict having regards to section 222 and 224 CFRN 1999 to be resolved.

That precedent should guide the courts today.

An unregistered association has no juristic personality and cannot claim proprietary ownership of a political party's name, logo, acronym or symbol. Such rights arise only upon lawful registration under the Constitution, the Electoral Act and the INEC Regulations and Guidelines for Political Parties. A mere application for registration does not create enforceable legal rights.

Accordingly, in the PMP case, the Federal High Court should be slow to substitute its discretion for that of INEC or permit collateral attacks on completed registration processes without a clear constitutional or statutory basis. The judiciary must speak with one voice. Conflicting decisions on substantially similar issues weaken legal certainty, diminish public confidence in the administration of justice and distort Nigeria's electoral jurisprudence.

The lesson from the 2013 APC acronym dispute is as relevant today as it was then: the courts should uphold settled legal principles, respect INEC's statutory role, and avoid creating uncertainty by departing from precedent without compelling legal justification. The rule of law is strengthened not by inconsistent rulings, but by the consistent application of established legal principles.


 Alex Ter Adum, PhD

alexadum45@gmail.com

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

20TH OCTOBER, 2025: THE DAY THAT PRESIDENTIAL INEXPERIENCE BROUGHT RESTIVENESS INTO THE FEDERATION CAPITAL TERRITORY. Written by KEMKA S. IBEJI

THE ANIMAL CALLED IDIOT AND THE MYOPIC MENTAL FACULTY OF OUR LEADERS. Written by Prince MacDonald Enwere

WHEN POLITICAL GAMES ENJOY COMMENTARIES OF WEAKLINGS AND THE TREACHEROUS: THE EYES OF THE MOST REASONABLE BECOME THE WATCH SCREENS. Written by KEMKA S. IBEJI