In a comprehensive legal intervention that has sent shockwaves through Nigeria’s political landscape, Hon. Matthew Onojighofia Omonade, Esq., a prominent legal practitioner and member of the Delta State House of Assembly, has declared that the recent judgment of the Federal High Court in Lokoja has effectively stripped the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) of its status as a registered political party. Releasing an exhaustive legal brief over the weekend, the lawmaker cautioned that public discourse regarding the judiciary must be firmly anchored on objective facts and established statutory frameworks rather than the emotional propaganda and media sentiment currently being deployed by opposition actors.
The controversy centers on a June 26, 2026 judgment delivered by the Federal High Court sitting in Lokoja, Kogi State, which set aside its own earlier ruling from December 10, 2025. That initial ruling had mandated the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to formally register the NDC. Following the recent reversal, high-ranking opposition figures—including the party’s strategic stalwarts—have flooded national airwaves, characterizing the court’s about-face as an orchestrated attempt by the ruling class to suppress political alternatives ahead of the 2027 general elections. However, Hon. Omonade has vigorously countered this narrative, asserting that the NDC's current existential crisis is entirely self-inflicted and procedurally sound under Nigerian jurisprudence.
According to the historical case files examined by Hon. Omonade, the substantive legal action arose long before high-profile political figures like former Anambra State Governor Peter Obi and former Kano State Governor Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso reportedly aligned with the platform. The original litigation arose because INEC had formally declined to register the NDC as a political party. A primary reason for the electoral umpire's refusal was that the specific corporate logo submitted by the NDC had already been formally tendered and claimed by another existing political association.
Instead of adding the original owners of the disputed logo to the suit as necessary defendants, the NDC proceeded to prosecute its case in isolation. By failing to notify or join the rival political group, the NDC successfully obtained a favorable mandamus order on December 10, 2025, which compelled INEC to issue its registration certificate. The legal landscape shifted dramatically when leadership of the Peace Movement Party (PMP)—the political association that claimed prior ownership of the corporate logo—became aware of the secret judicial directive. Acting swiftly, the PMP approached the Federal High Court in Lokoja seeking an extension of time to apply to set aside the December judgment, and a formal order invalidating the initial registration directive altogether.
The PMP’s application was built upon specific, damning assertions showing that the disputed logo had been officially submitted to INEC by the PMP prior to the NDC's registration attempt. Furthermore, the promoters of the NDC were fully aware of this conflicting submission but chose to conceal this material fact from the presiding judge. The initial judgment was therefore obtained in flagrant violation of the constitutional right to a fair hearing, as it directly impacted the legal interests of a necessary party that was deliberately excluded from the trial. Despite a vigorous defense mounted by the NDC’s legal team, the Federal High Court ultimately ruled in favor of the PMP, explicitly finding that the proceedings of December 2025 were fundamentally flawed due to the omission of an indispensable party.
A central pillar of the NDC’s public defense is the claim that a court of coordinate jurisdiction lacks the statutory competence to review or overturn a final judgment delivered by another court of equal status. This argument has been echoed widely across social media networks and national television panels. Hon. Omonade, however, dismissed this defense as both legally and procedurally untenable. He revealed that during the active litigation in Lokoja, the NDC’s legal counsel failed to file any formal preliminary objection challenging the trial court’s jurisdiction on these grounds.
The NDC filed a Counter-Affidavit, exhibited several documents, filed a Written Address, addressed the Court extensively on the merits of the application, and fully participated in the proceedings from commencement to conclusion. Having voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court and invited the Court to determine the application on its merits, a litigant cannot turn around after receiving an unfavourable decision to challenge the competence of the forum. The law frowns against such conduct; you cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time.
Furthermore, the Delta lawmaker clarified that the rule preventing a court of equal status from reversing another is a general principle, not an absolute doctrine. Experienced legal practitioners, he noted, understand that Nigerian law recognizes clear, settled exceptions where a trial court possesses the inherent jurisdiction ex debito justitiae to set aside its own judgment or that of a sister court to prevent a gross miscarriage of justice. Omonade listed the specific legal triggers that justify such an intervention, including instances where the earlier judgment is a fundamental nullity because it was entered without requisite jurisdiction, or where the judgment was demonstrably procured through fraud, misrepresentation, deceit, or the active concealment of material facts. It also applies where an affected party was completely denied their constitutional right to a fair hearing, or where the initial proceedings suffer from structural defects that render the resulting order incompetent.
To reinforce his position, the lawmaker cited a string of binding judicial precedents from the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. These include recent landmark rulings such as Abinde & Ors v. Salako (2024), Kolokuma/Opokuma Local Government Council v. Egbe (2025), Anatogu v. Iweka II, Emordi v. Kwentoh, Matthew v. Fadoju (2025), and Atsonka v. Kyoon (2025). Omonade maintained that the Lokoja court did not act as an appellate body over its previous decision; rather, it exercised its lawful, inherent powers to purge its own record of a fundamentally defective proceeding.
The NDC’s legal team has also attacked the validity of the June 26 ruling by claiming that the application was brought by a non-juristic person, arguing that the Peace Movement Party had no legal standing to sue. Omonade characterized this argument as demonstrably false and hypocritical. The public record reveals that the application was not filed in the bare name of the unregistered Peace Movement Party. Instead, it was initiated by Barrister Emmanuel Uzowuru in his capacity as the Protem National Legal Adviser of the PMP, suing directly for himself and as a representative of the members whose collective interests were harmed by the NDC’s logo appropriation.
Ironically, Omonade pointed out, this representative procedure is identical to the one used by the NDC to launch its original lawsuit in 2025. Before the December 10 judgment, the NDC was an unregistered association and thus lacked an independent corporate personality to sue or be sued. To overcome this hurdle, the original suit was filed by four protem national and state officers—Barrister Takori Mohammed Sani, Barrister Ikenna Morgan Enekweizu, Hon. Abdulmumin Ohiare Abdusalami, and Pius Ugboja—suing as representatives of the association.
The application brought by the PMP followed exactly the same legal approach. The Applicant before the Court was Barrister Emmanuel Uzowuru, suing for himself and as representative of his group. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The NDC cannot legitimately condemn the very procedure upon which it relied to build its original case.
Addressing the political interpretation that the court did not explicitly utter the word deregister in its final orders, Hon. Omonade warned that such arguments miss the structural reality of the ruling. The operative orders issued by the Federal High Court on June 26 explicitly decreed that the judgment of December 10, 2025, is set aside; that the entire suit must immediately revert to the pre-judgment stage; and that all involved parties are now at liberty to take fresh procedural steps to resolve the logo dispute.
The lawmaker explained that because the December 2025 judgment was the sole legal foundation forcing INEC to register the NDC, the collapse of that judgment instantly nullifies the registration. Invoking a celebrated principle of common law, Omonade stressed that a separate, explicit deregistration order was completely unnecessary.
The legal implication is absolute: the NDC no longer exists as a registered political party in the eyes of the law. You cannot place something on nothing and expect it to stand. Where the foundation is systematically removed, everything built upon it necessarily collapses. The NDC has effectively reverted to the status of an association seeking registration, pending the final determination of the substantive suit involving all necessary parties.
Concluding his exhaustive legal review, Hon. Omonade issued a sharp rebuke to political figures who use complex legal battles to inflame public passions and undermine national confidence in the judiciary. He criticized politicians who manage their campaigns through media appearances while keeping their own families insulated from domestic instability.
Sadly, some politicians, particularly those whose families and children permanently reside abroad, appear unconcerned about the consequences of spreading falsehoods capable of inflaming public passions. It is easy to play politics with the future of a country when one's own family has no intention of bearing the consequences. Many of us do not have that luxury; our families and children live here.
He reminded the public that legal outcomes are determined by constitutional boundaries, evidentiary value, and valid court orders, rather than press conferences or social media campaigns. Using a popular legal colloquialism from his home state to describe the NDC's intricate, self-made legal trap, Omonade concluded simply that the case has tied wrapper. Unless a higher appellate court intervenes and sets aside the June 26 decision, the ruling remains the binding legal reality, leaving the NDC's political future ahead of the 2027 elections deeply compromised.
