Senator Henry Seriake Dickson, former Bayelsa governor and national leader of the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC), has launched a fierce defence of his party after the Federal High Court sitting in Lokoja set aside the judgment that had earlier compelled the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to register it.
The latest ruling, delivered by Justice Isah Dashen, came after the Peace Movement Party argued that it was a necessary party that had not been heard. Premium Times reported that the court ordered the status quo restored and directed that the substantive matter begin afresh with INEC, the PMP and the NDC joined.
Dickson’s immediate reaction was defiant and deliberately political. “This morning, I, like several other leaders, officials, candidates of the NDC, and members of the public, was jolted by the order issued by the Federal High Court sitting in Lokoja,” he said.
He dismissed the order as one that “lacks legal merit”, called it “illegal”, and argued that it was designed to weaken the party’s “foundational credibility” and shrink Nigeria’s democratic space. In his telling, the ruling was not merely a legal setback but a direct assault on opposition politics.
The former governor has now framed the dispute as a test of nerve, not a terminal crisis. He said the NDC had assembled its lawyers and would move swiftly to set the order aside, while urging supporters to stay calm and continue with their normal political activities.
His message was classic siege politics. “This is only the first test of our commitment and resilience,” he said, adding that the party would “cruise to victory” despite the setback.
He also reached for a favourite maxim about struggle, saying, “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win.”
The legal background to the drama is crucial. INEC registered the NDC in February 2026 after the commission said it had complied with a Lokoja court order. Guardian reported that INEC received 171 letters of intent from associations seeking party registration, prequalified 14, and later said only two cleared the final compliance stage.
Those two were the Democratic Leadership Alliance and the NDC. INEC said the NDC’s registration followed a Federal High Court order in Lokoja in Suit No. FHC/LKJ/CS/49/2025.
That is why Dickson insists the latest ruling is not the end of the road. His camp believes the court has erred procedurally, while the opposing side argues that the omission of a necessary party makes the earlier judgment unsustainable.
Premium Times reported that the judge held the Peace Movement Party’s application, found that the earlier process was constitutionally defective because all interested parties had not been heard, and ordered that the matter be heard afresh.
The key phrase in the ruling is not that the NDC has been finally wiped out, but that the previous order has been vacated pending a fresh determination.
The NDC has long maintained that the legal challenge to its birth is politically motivated. In an April 7 statement on its own website, the party said the controversy over its registration was false and “mischievous”, and argued that the process of registering the party dated back to 2017.
The statement said the party was among the initial 171 associations that sought registration, and that it went to court after INEC allegedly rejected its logo on the grounds that it resembled the APC broom symbol.
The party said the court later agreed with its argument, enforced its right to freedom of association and ordered INEC to register it. Those claims remain the party’s version of events, but they show how deeply the current dispute is tied to symbolism, political identity and the right to organise.
There is also an important institutional detail that strengthens Dickson’s argument that the NDC had moved beyond the stage of being a paper party.
INEC’s own party portal lists the NDC with officers and a logo marked “BY COURT ORDER”, including its national chairman, national secretary and other officials.
That official listing is important because it shows that, until this fresh ruling, the commission itself had treated the NDC as a registered political entity operating under judicial authority.
Dickson had already been pushing back against claims that the NDC was a front for any other political force. In March, Premium Times quoted him saying, “There’s no litigation against NDC registration. INEC has already implemented the court order and cannot reverse it.”
He also insisted that the party was “an ideological platform” and not a proxy of the ruling APC. That earlier posture now collides head-on with the fresh Lokoja ruling, making the NDC’s legal counter-offensive as much about political credibility as about paperwork.
The political stakes are obvious. The NDC has tried to sell itself as a fast-growing opposition platform, and Dickson has repeatedly cast it as a shelter for Nigerians who want to resist one-party dominance.
In his latest remarks, he said the party would not be slowed down or broken, adding that “the struggle must continue” and that “all our candidates” should hold on firmly.
The message is meant to reassure supporters, but it also reveals the deeper anxiety: if the court dispute drags on, the party’s 2027 ambitions could be thrown into uncertainty at the very moment it is trying to present itself as a credible national alternative.
For now, the NDC is betting that the battle will be won in the courts and in public opinion. Dickson’s tone is designed to project inevitability, yet the Lokoja ruling shows how fragile new political platforms can be when their legal foundations are challenged.
The next phase of this fight will determine whether the NDC emerges as a serious opposition force with judicial backing, or becomes another casualty of Nigeria’s endless war between political ambition and legal process.
Follow us on our broadcast channels today!
- WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VawZ8TbDDmFT1a1Syg46
- Telegram: https://t.me/atlanticpostchannel
- Facebook: https://www.messenger.com/channel/atlanticpostng
