Can A Party’s Current Strength Offset Its Past Weakness? -By Oyewole Damilola

The recent Federal High Court judgment ordering the deregistration of five political parties has reignited a significant constitutional debate that extends beyond the immediate interests of the affected parties. At the center of the controversy is a fundamental question: Should a political party be assessed solely on the basis of its past electoral performance, or should its current political relevance and influence also be taken into account?

The court held that the affected parties failed to satisfy the constitutional requirements for continued registration. The judgment relied on provisions requiring political parties to either secure elective positions or achieve a prescribed level of electoral support. From a legal perspective, the court’s reasoning appears clear: a party that fails to meet constitutional benchmarks may be subject to deregistration.

However, the broader political implications are considerably more nuanced.

One of the affected parties currently serves as the platform of an incumbent governor seeking re-election. This development has prompted concern among political analysts and stakeholders. If a party that has attracted a sitting governor and commands substantial public attention can still be deemed politically irrelevant, what prospects remain for smaller parties striving to establish a meaningful presence within the political landscape?

Supporters of the judgment contend that a democratic system should not be encumbered by political parties that exist only in name. They argue that parties must justify their continued existence through measurable electoral performance. In their view, strict adherence to constitutional standards strengthens democratic institutions by encouraging accountability, credibility, and political seriousness.

Nevertheless, an alternative perspective warrants careful consideration.

Political relevance is inherently dynamic. Parties evolve, alliances shift, political actors change affiliations, and public sentiment fluctuates. A party that performs poorly during one electoral cycle may emerge as a significant political force in the next. Political history offers numerous examples of relatively small movements developing into influential national platforms.

The timing of the judgment has also attracted considerable public attention. Although reports suggest that the legal challenge predates some recent political realignments, the decision comes at a time when alternative political platforms appear to be gaining increased visibility and support. This convergence of events has understandably prompted many citizens to raise important questions about the future of political competition in Nigeria.

Ultimately, the central issue is not whether one supports any particular political party. Rather, it is whether Nigeria’s democratic system is better served by limiting political participation through stricter regulatory measures or by providing emerging parties with adequate opportunities to develop, compete, and contribute to the political process.

A robust democracy requires both order and competition. While an excessive number of inactive parties may create administrative and electoral challenges, an insufficient number of viable alternatives may restrict voter choice and weaken democratic engagement. The responsibility of lawmakers, courts, and electoral authorities is therefore to strike an appropriate balance between these competing considerations.

As the legal proceedings continue, one important question remains unresolved:

Can a political party’s current strength offset its past electoral weakness?

The answer may have far-reaching implications, not only for the affected parties but also for the future of Nigeria’s multiparty democratic system.

Oyewole Damilola is a media professional, broadcaster, and writer on politics, governance, and public affairs.