‘Judicial rascality’ move to deregister ADC echoes June 12 annulment – Olajuyigbe

The recent legal maneuver to deregister the African Democratic Congress (ADC) and four other political parties has sparked renewed concerns about the integrity of Nigeria's democratic institutions. This development has drawn comparisons to the controversial annulment of the June 12, 1993 presidential election, a moment widely regarded as a turning point in the nation’s political history. Gbenro Olajuyigbe, executive director of the Emergency and Risk Alert Initiative, has publicly criticized the process, calling it "judicial rascality" and drawing parallels between the current legal actions and the judicial interventions that led to the annulment of the 1993 election.

Olajuyigbe made his remarks during an appearance on *Vanguard Today in the News*, where he expressed deep concern over the use of the judiciary to serve political agendas. He accused the judiciary of once again being manipulated to legitimize actions taken by former military rulers, such as Ibrahim Babangida, under the guise of legal procedures. According to Olajuyigbe, the current attempt to deregister the ADC and its allies mirrors the tactics employed during the annulment of the June 12 election, which was orchestrated by figures like Arthur Nzeribe, then leader of the Association for Better Nigeria. He emphasized that such actions risk undermining the very foundations of Nigerian democracy.

The controversy surrounding the deregistration of the ADC and related parties gained momentum when the Court of Appeal in Abuja issued a stay against the execution of a Federal High Court judgment. That judgment had directed the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister the ADC, Action Peoples Party (APP), Action Alliance (AA), Accord Party (AP), and Zenith Labour Party (ZLP). The appellate court ruled that the lower court had violated procedural guidelines by proceeding without adhering to an earlier order to suspend the case. The court described the actions as a "brazen violation" of both judicial hierarchy and constitutional principles, ultimately granting a stay of execution until further review.

Olajuyigbe welcomed the Court of Appeal’s intervention, noting that the judges had labeled the original judgment as "judicial rascality." He argued that the timing of the deregistration—just before upcoming elections—was particularly alarming, especially given that some of the affected parties were preparing for contests in states like Ekiti. He questioned whether the authorities had waited too long to address potential violations, suggesting that such issues should have been resolved promptly following the 2023 elections rather than being raised at the eleventh hour.

In addition to criticizing the timing and motives behind the deregistration, Olajuyigbe stressed the importance of allowing opposition parties to function freely within the political system. He referred to opposition as the "oxygen of democracy," implying that its suppression would lead to stagnation and instability. He also pointed out that the current approach risks enabling extra-democratic forces to gain undue influence, potentially compromising the fairness of future elections.

Meanwhile, former Registrar of Elections (REC) Mike Igini has echoed similar sentiments, accusing the judiciary of playing a role in subverting the June 12 election. His comments, published in *The Punch*, highlight ongoing tensions between the judiciary and the electoral process, reinforcing the idea that past judicial decisions have had lasting impacts on Nigeria's democratic trajectory.

As the legal battle continues, observers remain divided on the implications of the Court of Appeal’s decision. While some see it as a necessary check on judicial overreach, others fear that the delay could disrupt the preparations of opposition parties for upcoming elections. With the nation poised for significant political activity, the outcome of this case will likely shape the landscape of Nigerian politics for years to come.