Abuja, Nigeria – A Nigerian appeals court has imposed a ₦1 million fine on David Atita, an attorney representing the now-defunct political party Liberation Movement, for what it described as a misuse of judicial resources. The fine stems from the counsel’s continued legal efforts challenging the party’s deregistration by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
The deregistration occurred after the Liberation Movement failed to meet the electoral victory conditions set out in Section 225(a) of the Nigerian Constitution during the 2019 general elections. This legislation mandates that a political party must secure either a legislative seat in any chamber of the National Assembly, a seat in the State Assembly, or a seat in a Local Government Area council to maintain registration.
Justice Okon Abang, who presided over the case, declared the appeal a frivolous academic exercise, aligning with a previous 2021 Supreme Court ruling in a similar case between the National Unity Party and INEC. The top court had already resolved issues akin to those Atita was contesting, which effectively undermined the grounds of his appeal.
During the court session, Justice Abang pointed out that Atita had previously been advised by INEC’s counsel to drop the appeal due to its apparent futility. However, the lawyer proceeded, prompting the court to review and ultimately reject the case, affirming the lower court’s decision that upheld the deregistration actions by INEC.
This decision prompted the court to penalize Atita personally, indicating the judiciary’s diminishing patience with what it sees as needless legal battles that burden the judicial system.
The fine underscores a broader legal and electoral framework challenge, as political parties in Nigeria grapple with stringent constitutional requirements that dictate their continued official recognition and operation. This case draws attention to the high stakes for smaller parties striving to gain and maintain a foothold in Nigeria’s robust political landscape dominated by more established parties.
The decision is hoped by some to act as a deterrent against the misuse of the courts with appeals that are unlikely to be overturned, considering prior precedents.
This episode adds another layer to the ongoing conversation about the balance between strict regulatory compliance to ensure serious political contenders and the fostering of a pluralistic political environment where smaller parties can also thrive.
The story and details narrated in this article are based on judicial proceedings and should be verified for accuracy. Corrections, retractions, or requests for article removal can be emailed to [email protected], as this article was generated with the assistance of AI.