PMP vs. NDC and INEC
By: “Sadiq Dasin Adamawa”
I have finally obtained the Certified True Copy (CTC) of the judgment in this case. After reading it, I now have a better understanding of what happened.
Here are my observations:
- NDC was registered by a court order. I am convinced that if INEC had registered the party through its normal administrative process, it would not have allowed NDC to use a logo that allegedly belonged to another party.
- Avoiding disputes like this over the registration of a new political party is one of the reasons why the coalition chose to join an already existing party instead.
After reading the case, I realized that the same judge who ordered INEC to register NDC later issued another order last Friday directing that NDC’s registration be set aside.
According to my understanding, the judge changed his position for the following reasons:
i. When he made the initial order on 10 December 2025 directing INEC to register NDC, he was unaware that the Peace Movement Party (PMP) had already claimed ownership of the two-finger logo and had previously submitted it to INEC as part of its own registration application.
ii. NDC did not inform the judge that the two-finger logo had already been claimed by PMP, even though NDC was aware of it. In other words, NDC failed to disclose a material fact to the court.
Although, as a general rule, once a judge has delivered judgment in a case, the proper remedy is an appeal, there are exceptions where the same judge may reopen or set aside the judgment if:
A. The judgment is shown to be a nullity.
B. The judgment was obtained by fraud.
C. There was suppression of a material fact.
D. The judgment was obtained in violation of the constitutional right to a fair hearing.
In my view, this case involves:
Suppression of a material fact; and
A violation of the constitutional right to a fair hearing.
I say this because the two-finger logo allegedly belongs to PMP, not NDC, and PMP was not aware that NDC had used the logo to obtain a court-ordered registration from INEC.
Secondly, after reviewing the record of proceedings, I found something surprising. In its own affidavit, NDC openly admitted that both it and PMP submitted the same logo to INEC, and further admitted that PMP had submitted the logo before NDC did.
Thirdly, in that same affidavit, NDC also admitted before the court that:
“The existence of PMP’s prior submission of the logo formed part of the considerations that informed INEC’s administrative decision to discontinue or decline the registration process of NDC.”
In my opinion, this is where NDC made a serious mistake. They brought this problem upon themselves.
Based on that affidavit alone, even if NDC appeals, I think it will be difficult for the appellate court to restore its registration. With only about seven months before the elections, when would NDC have enough time to conduct primaries and submit the names of its candidates?
In my view, NDC made a major blunder.
