PMP Counsel Justifies Bid to Overturn NDC Registration Verdict

Chikezie Ekeocha, the legal representative for the Peace Movement Party (PMP), has clarified the reasons behind their move to have a Federal High Court ruling nullified. The judgment in question had instructed the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to register the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) as a political entity. Speaking to The PUNCH on Wednesday, Ekeocha emphasized that the PMP's application was not politically motivated but rather stemmed from alleged misrepresentation of facts and a contentious party logo.

Ekeocha explained that the PMP initiated the application after discovering that the initial judgment negatively impacted its own registration procedures with INEC. He maintained that the court was correct in setting aside its earlier decision, as it found that critical facts were allegedly concealed and that the PMP's rights, despite not being a party to the original suit, were adversely affected.

Last Friday, the Federal High Court in Lokoja indeed reversed its previous judgment that directed INEC to register the NDC. Justice Isah Dashen, presiding, concluded that the initial judgment was constitutionally flawed because it was delivered without a fair hearing for all parties whose interests were directly implicated. The judge subsequently restored the pre-December 2025 judgment status quo and mandated a fresh hearing of the substantive case, with the NDC, PMP, and INEC all listed as parties.

Providing further details, Ekeocha stated that the core of the dispute revolved around the proposed two-finger victory sign logo for the NDC. He asserted that the PMP had previously submitted this very logo to INEC during its own registration process. Ekeocha elaborated that the NDC initially applied with an elephant logo but later sought INEC's permission to adopt the two-finger victory sign. He noted that INEC, in a letter dated September 12, 2025, informed the association that the proposed logo was unacceptable due to its similarity to one already submitted by another political group whose registration was already underway.

The lawyer further recounted that the NDC subsequently wrote to INEC on September 22, 2025, requesting to submit a new logo to revive its registration. However, Ekeocha argued that despite this request, the association later approached the court seeking registration while still relying on the disputed logo, instead of asking the court to compel INEC to accept a fresh one.

He quoted, “They had already acknowledged the dispute over the logo and even requested permission from INEC to submit a fresh one. But when they went to court, they relied on the same logo that had become the subject of dispute.”

Ekeocha also claimed that INEC highlighted the logo controversy in its counter-affidavit, presenting documents that showed the PMP had earlier submitted the logo. According to him, after the court ruled in favor of the NDC, the PMP discovered during a follow-up on its own registration that the judgment had effectively prevented it from continuing its application.

“That was what prompted my client to approach the court. The issue was not politics; it was about protecting a right that had been affected by a judgment delivered without hearing us,” he affirmed. Ekeocha dismissed suggestions that their application was an attempt to stifle opposition politics, insisting that the logo dispute predated the court judgment and any political developments surrounding the NDC.

“The disagreement over the logo existed before the judgment. It is therefore incorrect to suggest that this was an attempt to stifle the opposition. We simply sought to protect our client’s legal rights,” he reiterated. He added that if the NDC had disclosed its earlier request to submit a new logo and included the PMP in the original suit, the matter could have been resolved without setting aside the judgment.

According to Ekeocha, the court ultimately found that material facts had been withheld and that the failure to join the PMP amounted to a denial of fair hearing, as the orders impacted its legal interests. “The court did not sit on appeal over its own judgment. It found that it had been misled by the concealment of material facts and that the rights of the PMP had been affected. That is a recognised ground for setting aside a judgment,” he concluded.

Ekeocha also confirmed awareness of a reported notice of appeal filed by the NDC but stated that no hearing date had been communicated, nor had any record of appeal been transmitted yet. He mentioned that while his client remained open to an out-of-court settlement if necessary, the final decision rested with the PMP.