THE LOKOJA RULING: FACTS, NOT FURY
I read a commentary driven more by political anger, ethnic and religious prejudice, and personal attacks than by a careful examination of the ruling. Then read another legal analysis by a respected luminary. I decided to spend some days studying the truth devoid of colorations.
Here are the verifiable facts.
The Federal High Court in Lokoja had earlier ordered INEC to register the Nigeria Democratic Congress, NDC. On 26 June 2026, Justice Isah Dashen set that judgment aside after the Peace Movement Party argued that it had previously submitted the disputed “Victory Sign” logo and that the original judgment affected its claimed interest without giving it an opportunity to be heard.
The court did not finally award the logo to the PMP. It ordered a fresh hearing involving the interested parties.
Therefore, the claim that the judge merely “deregistered” the NDC to satisfy the APC is an allegation, not an established fact. No credible evidence has been presented showing that President Tinubu, the APC or any so-called cabal directed the ruling.
The argument that the PMP lacked standing merely because it was not yet a registered political party is also too simplistic. Legal standing depends principally on whether an applicant has a sufficient interest that may be directly affected.
A political association claiming earlier ownership or submission of the same logo may therefore approach the court as an interested or necessary party. Whether that claim is ultimately valid is precisely what the fresh hearing must determine.
Likewise, a court may revisit its judgment where it concludes that the decision was made without hearing a party whose legal interests were directly affected. That is not automatically “judicial rascality”; it is rooted in the constitutional principle of fair hearing.
The correctness of Justice Dashen’s reasoning can still be tested at the Court of Appeal.
The religious abuse directed at the judge—describing him as someone “trained only to understand Sharia law”—is irrelevant, discriminatory and unsupported.
A judgment should be criticised through its reasoning, jurisdiction, evidence and applicable precedents, not through the judge’s presumed religion, ethnicity or state of origin.
There is also no reliable evidence supporting the statement that President Tinubu “boasted that he rigged himself to power” or promised to rig himself into office for eight years. Such a statement should not be repeated as a quotation without an authenticated video, transcript or credible original source.
The NDC is entitled to appeal, seek a stay and defend its interests. The PMP is equally entitled to present evidence of its alleged prior claim. INEC must obey whatever valid order remains in force.
That is how constitutional democracy operates.
Calling for a “revolution” because a party suffered an adverse interim ruling is reckless. Courts are challenged through appeals, not threats of disorder.
THE TRUTH IS SIMPLE:
The NDC has encountered a serious legal setback, but the substantive dispute has not been conclusively determined.
Let the parties produce their applications, correspondence, logo records and timelines before the court.
Evidence—not insults, conspiracy theories or emotional blackmail—must decide the matter.
