Posterity United Assembly compares Lokoja ruling with Buhari v. Yar’Adua precedent, questions implications for democracy and judicial consistency
By Baron Eloagu
ABUJA, Nigeria — June 29, 2026
A fresh legal and political controversy has emerged following the decision of Justice Isah Dashen of the Federal High Court, Lokoja, to set aside his earlier judgment directing the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to register the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) as a political party.
The ruling has ignited nationwide debate over the limits of judicial authority, the doctrine of functus officio, and whether courts should prioritize constitutional procedure or political stability when electoral processes have advanced significantly.
In a legal and political reflection titled “Justice Dashen, Buhari vs Yar’Adua and the Danger of Reversing Judgment After Congress, Primaries & Elections,” the Posterity United Assembly (PUA), led by its President General, Ugochukwu Ukaoma Udodirim Ugwa, argues that the latest development raises profound questions about consistency in Nigeria’s judicial approach to election-related disputes.
While the analysis reflects the position of the organization and not judicial findings, it revisits the landmark 2007 presidential election litigation alongside the current NDC case to examine their broader constitutional implications.
The Buhari–Yar’Adua Election Dispute Revisited
The PUA recalled that following the April 21, 2007 presidential election, former Head of State, Maj.-Gen. Muhammadu Buhari, then candidate of the All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP), and former Vice President Atiku Abubakar of the Action Congress (AC), challenged the election of the late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua.
On February 26, 2008, the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal dismissed both petitions, affirming the election of Yar’Adua and his running mate, Goodluck Jonathan.
The legal battle eventually reached the Supreme Court, where a seven-member panel, in a split 4-3 decision delivered on December 12, 2008, upheld Yar’Adua’s election despite acknowledging irregularities in the conduct of the polls.
The majority held that although imperfections existed, they were insufficient to invalidate the overall election results.
However, the judgment generated considerable legal debate.
Some constitutional scholars argued that the apex court placed greater emphasis on preserving political stability than on strict compliance with electoral procedures.
The dissenting opinion of Justice George Oguntade, particularly on the issue of unserialized ballot papers, has continued to feature prominently in discussions on electoral jurisprudence.
Justice Dashen’s Reversal Sparks Fresh Controversy
At the centre of the current controversy is Justice Isah Dashen’s December 10, 2025 judgment directing INEC to register the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) as a political party.
However, on June 26, 2026, the same court reversed that decision.
According to the court, the earlier judgment was constitutionally defective because the Peace Movement Party (PMP), alleged owner of the logo adopted by the NDC, was not joined as a necessary party and was therefore denied its constitutional right to fair hearing.
The court consequently declared the previous proceedings a nullity, restored the parties to their pre-judgment positions, and ordered that the substantive suit begin afresh with all necessary parties properly joined.
NDC Questions Court’s Jurisdiction
The NDC has challenged the reversal, arguing that by the time the judgment was set aside, the party had already carried out substantial political activities in reliance on the original court order.
According to the party, it had:
- Conducted nationwide membership registration;
- Held ward, local government, state and national congresses;
- Conducted its national convention;
- Organized primary elections for elective offices;
- Participated in bye-elections in Nasarawa and Enugu States; and
- Begun preparations to submit candidates’ names to INEC.
The party maintains that once final judgment had been delivered, the court became functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to reverse its substantive decision through a motion.
Doctrine of Functus Officio Versus Void Judgment
The legal controversy centres on two competing constitutional principles.
The doctrine of functus officio generally provides that once a court has delivered its final judgment, it has exhausted its jurisdiction over the matter except to correct clerical or accidental errors.
The exception, however, is where the judgment is considered void from inception (void ab initio), particularly where a necessary party was not heard or where material facts were allegedly concealed.
Justice Dashen relied on this exception, holding that failure to join an indispensable party rendered the earlier judgment a nullity.
Legal analysts note that Nigerian courts have consistently held that a void judgment may be set aside at any time, irrespective of how much time has elapsed since its delivery.
Posterity United Assembly Draws Comparison
The Posterity United Assembly argues that the Dashen ruling appears to contrast sharply with the judicial reasoning adopted during the Buhari-Yar’Adua election litigation.
According to the group, while the Supreme Court in 2008 allowed political stability to outweigh identified electoral irregularities, the Federal High Court in Lokoja prioritized constitutional compliance over the practical consequences of reversing a judgment after substantial political activities had already taken place.
The organization contends that the contrasting outcomes have reopened debate over judicial consistency in politically sensitive cases.
Questions About Democratic Certainty
Beyond the legal technicalities, the PUA says the development raises broader questions about the predictability of Nigeria’s electoral process.
The group argues that political parties invest enormous financial and human resources in organizing congresses, conventions, primaries and campaigns based on existing judicial decisions.
Reversing those decisions after such investments, it warns, could undermine confidence in both the judiciary and Nigeria’s democratic institutions.
Nevertheless, constitutional lawyers also maintain that protecting the right to fair hearing remains one of the most fundamental principles of justice and cannot be sacrificed for administrative convenience or political expediency.
The dispute surrounding the NDC registration has evolved into more than a contest over one political party’s legal status.
It has become a significant constitutional debate over judicial finality, procedural fairness and democratic certainty.
Whether Justice Dashen’s decision ultimately strengthens constitutional jurisprudence or creates uncertainty within Nigeria’s electoral system may depend on the outcome of any appeal and the interpretations of higher courts.
For now, the contrasting judicial approaches in the Buhari-Yar’Adua election litigation and the NDC registration case continue to fuel debate among lawyers, politicians and constitutional scholars over the balance between strict adherence to legal procedure and the broader interest of democratic stability.
Leave a Reply