By Douglas Princemola
The leadership of Civic Action for Democracy (CAD), led by its Executive Director, Mazi Franklin Ngoforo, has publicly rejected claims by Ugochinyere Ikeagwuonu regarding the legal status of the Action Peoples Party (APP), describing them as misleading, legally unfounded, and an attempt to deceive the public. Speaking at a world press conference in Owerri on April 7, 2026, CAD maintained that APP remains a deregistered political party and cannot be salvaged through what it described as a parade of irrelevant court documents.
At the heart of the controversy is whether APP is still a legally recognized political party in Nigeria. CAD insists that the party was lawfully deregistered by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) on February 6, 2020, for failing to meet constitutional performance requirements. This action, according to CAD, was conclusively validated by the Supreme Court of Nigeria in March 2022, making APP’s deregistration final and binding on all authorities and institutions. Despite this, APP has continued to appear on INEC’s register and has reportedly participated in subsequent electoral activities. CAD argues that this continued recognition lacks any legal foundation and constitutes a serious breach of constitutional and electoral principles.
CAD strongly criticized Ugochinyere for circulating what he described as court judgments validating APP’s existence. According to Ngoforo, these documents do not address the central issue of deregistration and therefore cannot override INEC’s earlier decision or the Supreme Court’s affirmation. The group emphasized that not all court rulings are relevant to every legal dispute and argued that the documents being publicized relate to unrelated matters. It described the celebrations surrounding these documents as premature and rooted in either misunderstanding or deliberate misrepresentation of the law.
The organization examined the documents being circulated and categorized them into three major groups. The first, a Uyo court document, was said to concern an internal leadership dispute within APP. CAD explained that such intra-party matters have no bearing on whether the party is legally registered or deregistered, noting that the court reportedly declined to interfere in the party’s internal affairs. As such, the judgment was described as irrelevant to the issue of deregistration.
The second set of documents, said to originate from Owerri and dated October 2025, was also dismissed as fundamentally flawed in its implication. CAD argued that even if APP relied on electoral participation or victories to justify its continued existence, such actions would be legally invalid if the party had already been deregistered. According to established legal principles, actions taken by an entity without legal status are considered null and void, meaning they cannot be used to establish legitimacy after the fact.
The third document, a purported letter from INEC confirming APP’s existence, was also rejected as insufficient. CAD pointed out that the letter failed to reference any valid court order authorizing the party’s continued listing and therefore does not provide a legal basis for its existence. Instead, the group argued that the letter reflects administrative inconsistency rather than legal legitimacy.
A central pillar of CAD’s argument is the claim that INEC has repeatedly cited a court order restraining APP’s deregistration but has never produced it. Over several years, multiple legal requests were made for this document, yet none has been provided. CAD contends that the absence of this order strongly suggests that it does not exist and described it as a phantom court order used to justify the party’s continued presence on the electoral register. This allegation forms a major part of the ongoing legal action.
CAD anchored its position on several key legal principles, including the binding nature of Supreme Court decisions and the doctrine that a nullity cannot produce valid legal outcomes. Since the Supreme Court affirmed the 2020 deregistration exercise, CAD argues that no lower court or administrative body can reverse or contradict that decision. Furthermore, the group stressed that any political activity undertaken by APP after its deregistration, including participation in elections, is legally void. It maintained that the only legitimate path for APP to regain recognition would have been to apply for fresh registration under constitutional provisions rather than continuing to operate under its former status.
In its suit before the Federal High Court of Nigeria, CAD is seeking a range of remedies to address what it describes as a prolonged legal irregularity. These include declarations affirming APP’s deregistered status, injunctions preventing the party from participating in elections, and orders compelling INEC to remove APP from its register. The group is also requesting investigations into the circumstances surrounding APP’s continued listing, including the possibility of misconduct by officials.
CAD also highlighted INEC’s failure to actively defend APP’s status in court as a significant development. According to the group, the electoral body neither produced the alleged restraining order nor provided a substantive legal defense during proceedings. This silence, CAD argues, reinforces the conclusion that APP’s continued recognition cannot be legally justified.
The case is scheduled for further hearing on April 16, 2026. CAD expressed confidence that the court will rule in its favor and order APP’s delisting before the 2027 general elections. It warned politicians and members of the public against associating with the party, noting that such affiliations could carry legal and political consequences if the court affirms its deregistered status.
In conclusion, CAD presented the dispute as part of a broader effort to uphold constitutional order and electoral integrity in Nigeria. It accused Ugochinyere of promoting misleading narratives through selective use of court documents and maintained that no amount of public messaging can override constitutional provisions or judicial precedent. The final outcome now rests with the court, and its decision is expected to have significant implications for Nigeria’s political landscape as the 2027 elections approach.
