…History Has a Strange Sense of Humour
By Kayode Ajulo
Noise travels fast in Nigerian politics. Facts often arrive much later.
Since Justice Peter Lifu delivered his judgment deregistering the ADC, Accord Party and others, the public square has erupted with outrage, conspiracy theories and familiar accusations of political manipulation. Fingers are being pointed in every direction, and as usual, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has become the preferred destination for political frustration.
But beneath the fog of partisan emotions lies one inconvenient truth: Justice Lifu did not create the law; he merely read it.
That distinction is everything.
Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) speaks with unusual clarity. Political parties are required to attain stipulated electoral thresholds or face deregistration by INEC. There is no room for sentiment. No constitutional exemption for political nostalgia. No special immunity for political convenience.
The law is not written in pencil.
Even more importantly, these provisions did not suddenly emerge from the desk of President Tinubu. They were products of constitutional amendments assented to in 2018 by the late President Muhammadu Buhari. The legal architecture predates this administration and belongs not to any individual but to the Nigerian state itself.
Justice Lifu merely interpreted what had already been enacted. He did not legislate from the Bench. He did not embark on judicial adventurism. He did not engage in constitutional creativity. He simply performed the sacred duty expected of every disciplined jurist: applying the law as written.
As Lord Denning would likely remind us, judges interpret laws as they are, not as politicians wish them to be.
Law First. Convenience Later.
One enduring tragedy of our politics is the tendency to treat law as an inconvenience rather than a guide. For many political actors, statutes appear to function like traffic lights on a Lagos expressway, obeyed only when convenient.
Yet democracy does not survive on convenience.
Before any serious Nigerian joins or builds a political party, the first obligation ought to be legal due diligence. Is the platform constitutionally compliant? Does it possess legal viability? Is it a genuine political institution or merely a temporary vehicle for ambition?
Boarding a politically defective platform after constitutional warning signs have already appeared is like boarding a vessel after inspectors have declared it unseaworthy. Surprise at the outcome becomes difficult to justify.
The Constitution was never designed to pamper elite comfort. It exists to establish standards and impose order. Political parties unable to command meaningful electoral support cannot insist upon an eternal constitutional right to remain on the ballot.
Democracy is strengthened by institutions with legitimacy, not by an endless multiplication of political signboards.
History Has a Strange Sense of Humour
And here lies the fascinating irony.
Those now directing political missiles toward President Tinubu appear to forget the genealogy of the very laws under contention.
The constitutional framework now criticised emerged during the Buhari administration. Among those who stood at the centre of that government were some of today’s leading political actors and candidates of the now proscribed ADC, David Mark, Rotimi Ameachi, et al!
The then Attorney-General and Chief Law Officer of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, SAN, was the principal custodians and defender of the legal architecture of that era. The same constitutional order now attracting criticism passed through the legal machinery over which he exercised significant influence, now he’s the proscribed ADC gubernatorial candidate in Kebbi State!
History occasionally writes satire better than novelists.
The point is not to personalise the issue; the point is consistency. Political actors cannot celebrate legal principles when they advance immediate interests and denounce those same principles when circumstances become inconvenient.
As the Yoruba wisely say: the broom that sweeps for one today may sweep for another tomorrow.
Justice Lifu’s judgment should therefore not be viewed through the narrow prism of political suspicion, but through the wider lens of constitutional fidelity.
Because in the end, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria remains supreme — not political calculations, not temporary alliances, and certainly not outrage manufactured in the heat of political disappointment.
As Section 1(1) unequivocally declares:
“This Constitution is supreme and its provisions shall have binding force on all authorities and persons throughout the Federation.”
No footnote.
No exception.
No immunity for the powerful.
Period!
