Politics

2023: INEC Excludes 124 Parties From Participation

Published

3 years ago

May 8, 2022

No fewer than 124 political groups that applied for registration as political parties have been technically excluded from participating in the 2023 general elections by the Independent National Electoral Commission, Sunday PUNCH can confirm.

This, by implication, means that only the 18 parties that survived the commission’s last deregistration in 2020 will participate in the forthcoming elections.

It was reported on December 26, 2021, that 101 political associations had applied to the commission for registration. The Deputy Director, SERVICOM at INEC, Olayide Okuonghae, in his response to a Freedom of Information request sent by Sunday PUNCH, said the 101 associations applied between 2019 and December 14, 2021.

His response read in part, “In reference to your letter dated December 9, 2021, the commission wishes to inform you that from 2019 to December 14, 2021, a total of 101 political associations forwarded their letters of intent to be registered as political parties.”

Mr Rotimi Oyekanmi, the Chief Press Secretary to the INEC Chairman, Prof Mahmood Yakubu, confirmed the development to one of our correspondents in December, but noted that the commission could not reveal the names of the associations because they had not been approved as political parties.

It was, however, learnt that 23 more political associations applied for registration between December 14, 2021, and March 25, 2022.

An INEC interim report sighted by one of our correspondents showed that as of March 25, 2022, no fewer than 124 applications were received by the commission. However, none of the associations has been registered.

The report read in part, “As of March 2022, the commission had on record a total of 124 letters of intent from various political associations seeking to apply for registration as political parties. The summary of the status of the associations is that 97 associations out of 116 have been advised that their proposed names, acronyms or logos were not suitable or available for registration.

“Eleven of the associations that received letters of non-suitability of their proposed names/acronyms/logos resubmitted letters of intent with amended names/acronyms/logos. Sixteen associations submitted fresh letters of intent.”

Asked whether INEC would still register new political parties before the 2023 elections, Oyekanmi said on Friday that the final decision on whether or not to register a new political party before the elections rested exclusively with the commission, a system he said he would not pre-empt.

He said, “The submission of an application by an association or group for registration as a political party is the starting point of an elaborate and rigorous process. It, therefore, takes time and a lot of effort from when an application is submitted to the day the certificate of registration is given.

“Section 75 of the Electoral Act, 2022 says any political association that complies with the provisions of the constitution and the Act for the purposes of registration shall be registered as a political party provided, however, that such an application for registration shall be duly submitted to the commission not later than 12 months before a general election.”

The 2023 General Elections Project Plan launched by INEC last month also projects 18 political parties for next year’s elections.

With June 3, 2022, as INEC’s deadline for political parties to conclude their primaries, it seems clear that no new party will be able to participate in the general elections.

Several calls, SMS and WhatsApp messages sent to the INEC National Commissioner and Chairman of its Information and Voter Education Committee, Festus Okoye, for response were not picked or replied to.

However, a National Commissioner in INEC, who spoke with Sunday PUNCH on condition of anonymity, affirmed that only 18 political parties would partake in the elections.

He said, “Any party that registers now can never be for the 2023 elections because the timetable for the primaries is running already; the primaries must end on June 3, that’s less than a month. So, I don’t see how a party that is registered now will be able to meet up with all of these requirements.

“Don’t forget that they also have to bring the register of their members. So, if they are registered now, when are they going to do all of these?”

Asked to confirm if only 18 political parties would participate in the 2023 elections, he said, “Absolutely, that’s what is going to happen, because the timetable can no longer accommodate them (new members).”

A Resident Electoral Commissioner, who also did not want his name mentioned, said the commission would not reject any valid application for registration, but that its timetable could exclude any new party from participating in certain elections.

He said, “I don’t think INEC is in the position to turn them down. The only thing is whether or not they will be on the ballot. Maybe by the time they finish the process, it will be too late. If party primaries are over before they register as political parties, automatically they are out. Party primaries are to end on June 3, so automatically any political party that is set up after the primaries have been concluded cannot take part in the elections.”

Another source in the commission dismissed any insinuation that INEC delayed in registering the parties to avoid complications in its guidelines and preparations for the 2023 elections.

Prior to the fresh applications, INEC had on February 6, 2020 deregistered 74 political parties due to their poor performance in the 2019 general elections and the re-run elections that followed.

Yakubu said in addition to the extant provision for the registration of political parties, the Fourth Alteration to Section 225(a) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, empowered the commission to deregister political parties.

Ninety-one political parties participated in the 2019 general elections, while an additional one, the Boot Party, was registered based on the order of a court after the polls.

“Accordingly, 74 political parties are hereby deregistered. With this development, Nigeria now has 18 registered political parties,” Yakubu had said.

He recalled that between 2011 and 2013, INEC deregistered a total of 39 political parties based on the same provision. The Supreme Court, on May 7 upheld an earlier judgment of the Court of Appeal, which okayed the deregistration of the National Unity Party and 73 others. The appeal was filed by the NUP and others.

In the lead judgment delivered by Justice Adamu Jauro, the Supreme Court said the deregistration of the parties was done in line with the laws and in compliance with the extant provisions of the 1999 Constitution and the Electoral Act.

The judgment, delivered by a five-man panel led by Justice Mary Odili, said INEC was empowered by Section 225 (a) of the constitution to de-register any political party that failed to meet the relevant requirements. The apex court then dismissed the parties’ appeal.

However, a staff member of the commission, who did not want his name mentioned, said INEC had the responsibility of registering political parties but that people should also consider joining existing parties.

“Studies show clearly that in any democracy where you have one to three dominant political parties, the moment the elite begin to form more political parties, you are only increasing the chances of those dominant parties, even though they may not be liked by the people,” he stated.

Asked for the solution, he said, “People should join the political parties and not go and form theirs. In the last Osun State governorship election in 2018, there were 25 political parties, whereas 18 participated. If you check, you will find out that the two major parties led the others despite the way people criticised them.”

It’s risky for parties to change congress, primaries’ dates – INEC

Meanwhile, less than four weeks to the deadline for political parties to hold their primaries, INEC has said it is now risky for any party to change the dates of its congresses, conventions and primaries.

Okoye had in a statement a few days ago said that in compliance with Section 82 (1) of the Electoral Act (2022), all the 18 political parties had served the required notices indicating the dates for their conventions, congresses, and primaries for the purpose of nominating candidates for various elective offices as specified in the constitution and the Electoral Act.

Asked if political parties could still change the dates for those exercises, Oyekanmi said on Friday, “It’s not advisable for any political party to change the date of its convention, congress, or primary election at this time. The deadline for the conduct of party primaries for the 2023 general elections is June 3, 2022.

“The Electoral Act, 2022 states that parties must give the commission at least 21 days’ notice. What this means is that political parties have until May 13, 2022 to give the commission a notice. In my opinion, waiting till the last moment to do the needful is always risky.”

PUNCH.

Related Topics:#INEC #Political parties 2023 elections

Up Next

2023: INEC Chairman Denies Plan To Contest Presidency

Don't Miss

2023: Tinubu’s Campaign DG Dumps APC

Comments

Politics

Edo Govt, PDP Bicker Over Okpebolo’s Absence ,₦4.2bn SUV Budget

Published

49 minutes ago

September 4, 2025

Editor

The Edo State Government and the state chapter of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) on Thursday traded words over an alleged absence of Governor Monday Okpebolo and his deputy , Hon Dennis Idahosa in the state.

In a statement signed by
Chris Nehihkare, Publicity Secretary,
State Caretaker Committee of the PDP, the party also accused the Edo State Government of budgeting a whooping #4.2bn for Sport Utility Vehicles (SUV) and overbloating the State Executive Council with 28 Commissioner nominees.

Nehihkare, who said “absence of both leaders, who are currently on foreign trips, is an unprecedented abdication of duty,” alleged that their absence has left Edo in a “dangerous leadership vacuum.”

“The reckless dereliction of responsibility has plunged Edo into a dangerous leadership vacuum at a time when citizens are groaning under economic hardship, worsening insecurity, and stalled public services—direct consequences of the ineptitude of the APC-led administration at both the federal and state levels,” the statement reads.

The opposition party raised the alarm over what it called a “disturbing level of wasteful spending by the Okpebholo administration.”

According to the PDP, “the government plans to spend ₦4.2 billion on luxury SUVs for these commissioners, with each vehicle priced at an estimated ₦150 million.

“This reckless expansion of government comes on top of a growing army of Special Advisers, board chairmen, members, and heads of parastatals—appointments that have driven the cost of governance in Edo to an all-time high,” the statement added.

The party accused the administration of prioritizing luxury and patronage over the welfare of Edo citizens.

It criticized the government’s failure to follow the lead of other states that are using increased federal allocations to improve worker welfare and raise the minimum wage.

“While other states are prioritizing workers’ welfare by raising the minimum wage in line with increased allocations from the Federation Account, the Okpebholo/Idahosa administration is fixated on buying SUVs, ‘sharing the money,’ and settling political IOUs,” the party noted.

The statement added: “Are Okpebholo and Idahosa unaware that farmers in Uhunmwonde and Ovia North-East have abandoned their farmlands due to attacks by armed gangs?” the statement questioned. “Do they not know that kidnappers continue to terrorize highways and communities across Edo, while markets in Benin and other cities are no longer safe, with traders forced to close early out of fear?”

The PDP, therefore, called on the governor and his deputy to return from their foreign trips and confront the “urgent task of governance,” which it said includes restoring security, paying workers, rehabilitating infrastructure, and improving public services.

However, in a shift reaction, Chief Press Secretary to the governor, Fred Itua, said the Edo State deputy governor, Hon Dennis Idahosa had since returned to the country and is discharging his duty diligently .

He urged the public to disregard the “falsehoods peddled by the PDP.

“Edo State is not rudderless. It is firmly on course under the purposeful leadership of Governor Monday Okpebholo and his deputy, Rt. Hon. Dennis Idahosa,” he added.

Politics

Court Ruling Clears Jonathan For 2027 Presidential Bid Amid Pressure From Parties

Published

2 days ago

September 2, 2025

Editor

As the possibility of former President Goodluck Jonathan contesting the 2027 presidential election continues to heat up political discussions, a previously unpublished judgment delivered by a Federal High Court in Yenagoa, Bayelsa State, affirmed that Jonathan was well qualified to contest presidential election.

Two members of the APC in Bayelsa had gone to court in 2022 to determine Jonathan’s position, given the high stakes northern lobby to mobilise Jonathan to replace late President Muhammadu Buhari before the now President Tinubu eventually clinched the APC ticket.

Aides to the former President said he is still consulting on whether to throw his hat in the ring for 2027.

Sources close to the former President told THISDAY last night, that he has been approached by three political parties each wanting him to contest the presidency on their platforms. The Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, the New Nigeria Peoples Party, NNPP and the recently formed coalition, the African Democratic Congress, ADC all jostling for the former President who many see as one of the most viable candidates that can give the incumbent President Bola Ahmed Tinubu a good run for his money.

This calculation is based on the fact that Jonathan can only legally seek one more term and could assuage the feelings of northern voters who accuse President Tinubu of marginalisation.

A claim that the presidency has vigorously denied.

The judgment delivered by Justice Isah Dashem of the Federal High Court, Yenagoa, on May 27, 2022 but obtained by THISDAY on Monday, put to rest the contentious constitutional amendment of Section 137(1)(b) and 3, as it affects Jonathan.

Various analysts led by the Minister of Aviation and Aerospace Development and Learned Silk, Festus Keyamo, had claimed that the PDP may put its presidential chances in 2027 at “risk” should they field Jonathan going by the provisions of the above section from the amended Constitution in 2018. However, Keyamo did not disclose or was unaware of the judgement of Justice Dashem.

The judgment, which has not been appealed or set aside remains subsisting. And it is now out of time for any appeal after 3 years since it was delivered In the 2022 suit with number: FHC/YNG/CS/86/2022, the two APC members sued Jonathan, APC and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), over rumour that the APC had planned to field the former president as its presidential candidate in the 2023 general elections.

Their grouse was that Jonathan’s participation would ruin the chances of the APC having taking oath of office twice as president.

The sole issue raised for determination was “Whether, in view of the provisions of | Section 137(1)(b) and (3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as altered) and the fact that Jonathan had earlier been sworn-in as the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in 2010 and 2011 respectively, whether he is qualified to contest for the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in the 2023 General Elections to be organized by the 3rd Defendant.”

The plaintiffs, Andy Solomon and Idibiye Abraham, through their lawyer, Seigha Egbuwabe, further urged that if the answer to (1) above was in the negative, then the court should determine “Whether the no 2” Defendant was entitled to field the 1st Defendant as its Presidential Candidate in the 2023 General Elections.”

The court was also to determine, “Whether the 3rd Defendant is entitled to disqualify the 1st Defendant from contesting and/or from being presented as the 2nd Defendant Presidential Candidate in the 2023 General Elections.”

Dashem, after taking arguments from plaintiffs’ lawyer and Jonathan, who was represented by Eric Omare, held that Jonathan was eminently qualified to contest in 2023.

Before arriving at the conclusion, Dashem observed that Jonathan was elected first as president in 2011.

“The office into which the ‘election’ stated in Section 137(1)(b) of the Constitution applies to the Office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and not into the Office of the Vice President. I have perused the entirety of the Plaintiffs supporting affidavit and Written Address and I am unable to find where the Plaintiffs referred this Court contested apart from the elections conducted in year 2011.

“I, therefore, find the Plaintiffs’ contention that the 1st Defendant has been elected to the Office of President on Two (2) previous occasions spurious, baseless and unsubstantiated.

“And I so hold.”

He clarified that although elections into the offices of President and Vice President were conducted simultaneously and upon a joint ticket submitted by a political party, such as the 2nd Defendant, to the 3rd Defendant, the positions of President and Vice President were two different offices.

According to the judge, election of a person, such as the 1st Defendant, into the Office of the Vice President is not the same as his election into the Office of the President and vice-versa.

The judge stated, “A person who is elected into the Office of Vice President cannot by virtue of such election simpliciter, occupy the position of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. I so hold.

“As I have noted above, the Plaintiff did not file a Reply Affidavit to dispute the facts contained in paragraphs 4(i) — (y) of the 1st Defendant’s Counter Affidavit. The legal implication of this failure is that the contentions of the 1st Defendant are deemed to be true.

“In the final analysis, I find that, the evidence before this Court points to the conclusion that the 1st Defendant has only been elected into the Office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria on one (1) previous occasion, which said occasion was in the General Elections conducted in year 2011. And I so hold.”

On the provisions of Section 137(3) of the Constitution, Dashem stated that Jonathan was sworn in as president in 2010, to complete the tenure of late President Umaru Yar’Adua and again in 2011, after he won the 2011 presidential election.

He agreed with Jonathan’s submissions that the said provisions, which sought to bar persons who completed another’s tenure from contesting twice, did not apply to him because the law was passed in 2018, when he already had the right to contest and contested in the 2015, general elections.

Dashem said, “As I have held above, the provisions of sub-Section (3) of Section 137 of the Constitution was not part of our Constitution prior to June 7, 2018, when same took effect. It, therefore, follows that the provisions of sub-section (3) was not the position of our law at all material times before June 7, 2018. It also follows that, prior to June 7, 2018, no restriction was placed on the number of times a person who was sworn-in to complete the term of office of a President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria can be re-elected into that Office.

“The 1st Defendant has argued that, since he acquired his right to contest and, if successful, be sworn-in as President after he lost his re-election bid, in 2025, to the current President – President Muhammadu Buhari it would be unethical to the spirit and intendment of the legislature to take away the right he acquired in year 2015 on the basis of a law that came into effect in 2018.

“Now, the position of the law on retroactive or retrospective application of laws is quite settled. Retroactive laws are which relate or cover matters or acts which occurred before its commencement date.”

The judge added, “Despite my best efforts, I fail to see where the legislature expressed their intention, by express and unequivocal words, that the provisions of subsection (3) of Section 137 of the Constitution should be accorded retrospective application.

“In the absence of such express words, I am constrained to hold that the provisions of Section 137(3) do not enjoy retrospective application. The application and enforceability of the said subsection can only be construed to apply with effect from June 7, 2018. And I so hold.

“In my opinion, the position being propounded by the 1st Defendant is not only tenable but accords with the position of the law. It is the duty of the Plaintiffs to point or direct this Court to where the legislature stated that the provisions of Section 137(3) of the Constitution apply to events and/or rights which have been acquired and/or have been vested in parties prior to June 7, 2018.

“The law is that, he who asserts must prove. See, Section 131(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011. It therefore, behoved the Plaintiffs to provide this Court with facts to support their case. In the absence of such proof, I find that the Plaintiffs have not discharged the burden of proof placed on them by law.

“I, therefore, find merit in the argument of the 1st Defendant that the introduction of sub-section (3) of Section 137 of the Constitution does not affect his right to contest for the Office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in the 2023 General Elections and be sworn-in as such, should he be victorious at the polls.

“As I have noted above, before, in year 2015 when the 1st Defendant lost his re-election bid into the Office of the President, the restriction imposed by subsection (3) to Section 137 was not in existence. This is why the 1st Defendant despite having been sworn-in as President on May 6, 2010 and May 29, 2011, was able to contest for the Office of the President in the 2015 General Elections.

“Had the 1st Defendant been victorious at the 2015 polls, he would have been sworn-in for a third time without any legal impediment. Therefore, the 1st Defendant acquired his right to contest for the Office of the President immediately his term as President ended on May 29, 2015. Clearly, it is incontrovertible that the Ist Defendant’s right to contest and be sworn-in as President accrued to and was vested in him on May 29, 2015. And I so hold.

“In the final analysis, I answer Question 1 formulated by the Plaintiffs in their Originating Summons in the affirmative.

“I declare that, the provisions of Section 137(3) of the Constitution acquired the force of law with effect from June 7, 2018 and same does not have retrospective application.

“I also declare that, the 1st Defendant is not disqualified by the provisions of Section 137(1)(b) and (3) of the Constitution from contesting for election into the Office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in the 2023 General Elections.

“Having answered Question 1 in the affirmative, the necessity to answer Questions 2 and 3 have been obviated. However, for the avoidance of doubt, I answer Question 2 in the affirmative also whilst I answer Question 3 in the negative.

“In the final analysis, I answer questions 1 and 2 posed in the Originating Summons in favour of the 1st Defendant and question 3 in the negative and therefore against the 3rd Defendant.

“Consequently, I enter Judgement for the I Defendant and all the reliefs sought by the Plaintiffs in their Originating Summons dated May 16, 2022 (but filed on May 17, 2022) fail and are all hereby dismissed.”
Source: Arise News

Politics

El-Rufai Hits Back At ONSA, Kaduna, Insists Agencies Paying Bandits

Published

3 days ago

September 1, 2025

Editor

Former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, on Monday rebutted the statements from the Office of the National Security Adviser and Kaduna State Government that accused him of politicising national security.

He maintained his previous accusation that the agencies turn security into a political tool and are complicit in payments to bandits.

In a lengthy response posted on his social media accounts, El-Rufai said the ONSA and Kaduna government were deflecting from the “core issues” he raised in a Channels Television interview.

He levelled fresh allegations that state actors have been involved in “greasing the palms” of non-state armed groups in Kaduna and neighbouring states.

The statement read, “As usual, the combined voices of the Government of Kaduna State (KDSG) and ONSA, instead of responding to the core issues I raised, seek to deflect responsibility by alleging that exposing them amounts to politicising security.

“As a person whose three siblings served in the Nigerian Army and the Air Force, with one of them rising to the rank of general, I will also continue to appreciate the immense work that continues to be done by gallant officers of the military and security agencies.

“It is a well-known fact to discerning Nigerians that the face of the politicisation of national security for politically intended purposes resides, for the first time in our recent history, in the ONSA under its present leadership.

“If the ONSA thinks Nigerians are not following its unclear and incompetent management of terrorism and banditry in Northern Nigeria and beyond, in collaboration with a certain senator, also from the North, then it is high time it carried out an in-depth evaluation and review of its actions.”

El-Rufai asked a string of pointed questions, urging authorities to explain what he described as the mechanics of alleged payments to bandits: who delivers the money, how much is handed over, and whether middlemen skim funds before delivery.

He also challenged officials to account for recent purchases of prime real estate in Abuja, which he suggested could be linked to illicit flows.

“This charade by ONSA is being done gleefully at a steep cost to the finances of the country and the ethical fabric of our society.

“The constitutional, legal and patriotic duty the government owes to security is to better support our military and security agencies with more resources like personnel, equipment and technology, rather than further endangering the country by mollycoddling bandits.

“What exactly constitutes ‘negotiations with bandits’? Why is non-kinetic approach to addressing banditry and criminality equal to withdrawals of huge amounts of money from state treasuries and handing them over to bandits and terrorists?

“Which officials and their intermediaries deliver this money, and how much personal withholding tax do they apply before delivery of the funds? Who are the most prolific purchasers of prime real estate in Abuja in the last two years, and what is the source of their newfound wealth?

“These are questions many discerning citizens are demanding answers to, while officials of ONSA and KDSG are focusing on protocol, propaganda and international junkets!”

El-Rufai further questioned the effectiveness of recent negotiations with bandits, saying attacks resumed after talks.

“After the much-publicised negotiations with bandits in Birnin Gwari… did the bandits not kill five citizens in the same Birnin Gwari LGA last month?” he asked, also listing other local government areas where kidnappings and killings allegedly continued.

He criticised what he described as ONSA’s public displays, including the parade of “rescued victims” and the attendance of senior security officers at political events in Kaduna, as examples of politicised security messaging.

The former governor, who led Kaduna for eight years, reiterated his respect for the military and security agencies and recalled working with numerous service chiefs during his tenure.

“Our appreciation for the sacrifices made by our military and security officers is deep. That is why we speak out about those saddled with immense responsibility two years ago who seem to view security management as a persistent exercise in propaganda,” he continued.

El-Rufai also accused the Kaduna State Government of sponsoring or enabling violence against political opponents, pointing to last weekend’s disruption of an African Democratic Congress meeting in Kaduna as evidence.

He concluded by urging ONSA and Kaduna authorities to focus on solving insecurity rather than “muzzling” dissent.