INEC won’t act on the Lokoja court ruling overturning NDC’s registration until it receives the certified copy. Here’s what the judgment means and what comes next.


INEC awaits certified true copy of Federal High Court NDC ruling Lokoja

INEC Holds Fire on NDC Court Ruling โ€” Won’t Move Until It Gets Certified Copy

Abuja, June 27, 2026 โ€” The INEC NDC court judgment saga took another dramatic turn this week โ€” and Nigeria’s electoral commission is playing it very carefully. The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) confirmed on Saturday that it has not yet received the Certified True Copy of a Federal High Court ruling delivered in Lokoja on June 26. Until that document lands in its hands, INEC says it will not take any formal position on the case. The commission’s Chief Press Secretary and Media Adviser to the INEC Chairman, Adedayo Oketola, made this clear in an interview published Saturday.

So what exactly happened in that Lokoja courtroom โ€” and why does it matter so much? Let’s break it down.

The INEC NDC Court Judgment: What the Lokoja Ruling Actually Said

On Friday, June 26, Justice Isah Dashen of the Federal High Court sitting in Lokoja delivered a judgment that effectively hit the reset button on the Nigeria Democratic Congress registration controversy. Specifically, the court set aside its own earlier ruling from December 10, 2025. That earlier judgment had ordered INEC to register the NDC as a recognised political party in Nigeria.

So why did the court reverse course? The answer lies in a procedural gap. The Peace Movement Party โ€” a separate political entity โ€” had not been joined as a party to the original suit. Yet, crucially, the Peace Movement Party claims ownership of the logo that the NDC relied upon to obtain the initial registration order. The court therefore held that the Peace Movement Party’s rights were materially affected by a judgment delivered without its participation. That procedural flaw, the court ruled, was serious enough to void the earlier decision entirely.

Consequently, Justice Dashen ordered all parties to return to the positions they held before the December 2025 judgment. Additionally, the court directed that a fresh hearing of the substantive case begin โ€” this time with all necessary parties properly joined. In short, the registration battle goes back to square one.

According to the Nigerian Judiciary’s framework on party registration disputes, procedural fairness requires that all parties with direct interest in a case receive the opportunity to be heard. That principle, in practice, drove Friday’s decision.

NDC Rejects Ruling, Vows to Fight On at Court of Appeal

Unsurprisingly, the NDC did not take the ruling quietly. The party’s National Chairman, Senator Moses Cleopas, immediately rejected the judgment and announced plans to challenge it at the Court of Appeal. His argument was pointed and legally specific.

Senator Cleopas maintained that the trial court lacked the jurisdiction to revisit a matter on which it had already delivered a final judgment. Furthermore, he insisted that the party had not been deregistered by Friday’s ruling โ€” a framing designed to keep the NDC’s status ambiguous while the appeal process unfolds.

Beyond the party leadership, prominent figures aligned with the NDC weighed in quickly. Peter Obi, the party’s presidential candidate, described the ruling as deeply troubling. Senator Henry Dickson, the NDC’s National Leader, also spoke out. Together with other opposition stakeholders, they framed the judgment as a threat to Nigeria’s multiparty democracy and vowed to pursue every available legal remedy.

The strength of that reaction reflects just how high the political stakes are. For many in the opposition space, the NDC’s registration represents more than one party’s survival โ€” it symbolises the broader question of whether Nigeria’s electoral and judicial systems genuinely accommodate political alternatives.

INEC NDC Court Judgment: Why the Commission Is Waiting for the CTC

INEC’s measured response โ€” waiting for the Certified True Copy before acting โ€” is both legally sound and politically cautious. Nigerian administrative law generally requires government agencies to act on certified court documents, not media reports. Therefore, basing any formal decision on news coverage alone would expose the commission to further legal challenge.

“The Independent National Electoral Commission is aware of reports circulating in the media regarding the judgment delivered on Friday, June 26, 2026, by the Federal High Court sitting in Lokoja, which set aside an earlier order concerning the registration of the Nigeria Democratic Congress,” Oketola’s statement read.

However, INEC was explicit that awareness does not equal action. The statement confirmed that the commission’s legal department will thoroughly study the CTC once received. Only then will INEC take what it described as an “informed, lawful decision in line with the court’s directives.”

“Until then, we cannot comment on the specifics of the ruling,” Oketola added, urging the public to await the commission’s formal position.

That last line is important. INEC operates in an environment where any perceived misstep on party registration cases can trigger immediate political backlash, court challenges, or public accusations of bias. Waiting for the CTC, therefore, is not bureaucratic foot-dragging โ€” it is standard legal protocol that also happens to insulate the commission from premature criticism.


What Happens Next: A Fresh Hearing and an Uncertain Timeline

The road ahead is neither short nor simple. First, the Court of Appeal must process the NDC’s anticipated challenge to Friday’s judgment. That process alone could take months, depending on the court’s schedule and any applications for accelerated hearing. Meanwhile, at the Federal High Court level, the order for a fresh hearing means the substantive question of the NDC’s registration must be relitigated โ€” this time with the Peace Movement Party formally included.

Indeed, this dual-track legal process creates genuine uncertainty. The NDC could win at the Court of Appeal and restore the December 2025 registration order. Alternatively, the appeal could fail, sending the case back for the full fresh hearing at the trial court level. Either way, the NDC’s legal status as a registered political party remains genuinely unresolved for the foreseeable future.

For INEC, this uncertainty creates an operational challenge. The commission must prepare for the 2027 general elections while simultaneously managing a live party registration dispute with significant political sensitivity. Furthermore, any action or inaction by INEC during this window will face intense scrutiny from multiple directions โ€” both from the NDC camp and from parties opposed to the NDC’s registration.

The NDC saga also raises broader questions about Nigeria’s party registration framework. Critics have long argued that the legal pathways for registering new political parties are unnecessarily complex and susceptible to procedural manipulation. Supporters of the current system counter that rigorous scrutiny protects the integrity of the ballot. Friday’s ruling, whichever way it ultimately resolves, will add another chapter to that ongoing debate.

The Bigger Picture: Democracy, Due Process, and the NDC Question

At its core, the INEC-NDC standoff is a test of how Nigeria’s democratic institutions handle pressure. Courts are being asked to balance procedural fairness โ€” ensuring all affected parties are heard โ€” against the democratic interest in expanding political competition. INEC is being asked to implement court orders faithfully while remaining impartial. And political actors are being tested on whether they will respect institutional processes even when rulings go against them.

None of those tensions resolve easily or quickly. However, the fact that the dispute is playing out through courts, press statements, and formal legal processes โ€” rather than through street protests or extrajudicial action โ€” reflects a certain resilience in Nigeria’s democratic framework. The system is clearly under strain. But it is, at least for now, still functioning.

INEC has promised a formal position once it studies the Certified True Copy of Justice Dashen’s ruling. The public is watching. So is the NDC. And so, undoubtedly, is the Court of Appeal.