Presiding over the case, Justice Isah Dashen delivered a ruling that centered fundamentally on the principles of fair hearing and due process. He firmly stated that for any substantive judicial decision to be valid and constitutionally sound, it is imperative that all parties with a direct interest in the matter must be given an opportunity to present their arguments and be heard. This foundational legal principle formed the core of the court's reasoning for overturning its own judgment. Justice Dashen pointed out that the previous ruling was delivered without the involvement of a key stakeholder, thereby rendering it defective from a constitutional standpoint. He emphasized that such an omission was not a minor technicality but a fundamental flaw that struck at the heart of justice, effectively nullifying the entire process that led to the initial judgment.
The catalyst for this judicial reconsideration was an application filed by another political entity, the Peace Movement Party. The PMP successfully convinced the court that it was a necessary and indispensable party to the suit, with its legal rights and interests directly affected by the outcome of the case regarding the NDC's registration. By upholding the PMP's application, the court acknowledged that the earlier proceedings had been conducted without a complete picture of the competing claims and interests involved. Justice Dashen further noted that certain material facts, crucial to a just determination, had been suppressed or not brought to the court's attention during the initial hearings. This suppression of facts provided additional justification for the drastic measure of setting aside the judgment.
Consequently, the court issued several clear directives. First, it ordered that the status quo be restored to the exact position that existed before the controversial judgment of December 2025. This is not merely a pause or a maintenance of the current situation, but an active rewinding of the administrative and legal clock. Second, the substantive suit itself is to begin afresh, from the very start. This new hearing will include INEC, the Peace Movement Party, and the Nigeria Democratic Congress as full and formal parties to the case, ensuring all voices are part of the proceedings. The objective, as outlined by the court, is to ensure that the issues in dispute are "effectually and completely determined" with all cards on the table.
Following the ruling, counsel for the Peace Movement Party, Chikezie Ekeocha, elaborated on the implications for journalists. He explained that his client approached the court after discovering that the NDC's registration was allegedly based on a party logo that the PMP itself had previously submitted to INEC, a claim that arose before the original suit even commenced. The court's agreement that the applicant's rights were affected was the basis for vacating the earlier order. Ekeocha stated that the practical effect of this ruling is profound and immediate: every action taken by INEC in compliance with the now-vacated judgment is legally reversed. This includes the formal recognition of the NDC, the issuance of its certificate of registration, its inclusion in INEC's official records, and any appearance on ballot papers that resulted from that initial judgment. All these must be withdrawn until the freshly initiated substantive suit is finally determined by the court.
Ekeocha was careful to clarify a crucial point for public understanding: the core dispute over the party's registration is not over. The court has not made a final decision on whether the NDC should or should not be registered. Instead, it has erased the previous decision and mandated a new, comprehensive hearing that includes all relevant parties. He dismissed any characterizations that the court simply asked parties to maintain the status quo, insisting the language was specific and forceful in directing a restoration of the pre-December 2025 position. In essence, this ruling resets the entire legal dispute. The question of the Nigeria Democratic Congress's registration is once again an open matter before the Federal High Court, untethered from the previous judgment, and awaiting a new determination that will be reached only after all interested parties have had their full day in court. This case underscores the judiciary's role in enforcing procedural fairness, even when it means revisiting and correcting its own rulings to uphold the broader tenets of justice.
