…Superior Court Quashes ADC, other parties’ deregistration as same Judge takes fresh aim at opposition party
By Yinka Giwa
A fresh judicial storm has engulfed the African Democratic Congress (ADC) after the Court of Appeal delivered a stinging rebuke of Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court, Abuja, describing his conduct as the “highest form of judicial impertinence” and invoking a Supreme Court position that a judge who acts in such a manner is “unfit for the bench” because it amounts to “judicial rascality.”
The appellate court’s intervention came barely 24 hours after Justice Lifu delivered a judgment ordering the deregistration of the ADC and four other political parties, even as the same judge, in a separate case on Tuesday, refused to withdraw from a suit seeking to remove the Senator David Mark-led leadership of the ADC and imposed a N1 million cost against parties that sought his recusal.
In a unanimous decision delivered by a three-member panel led by Justice A. B. Mohammed, the Court of Appeal ordered an immediate stay of execution of Justice Lifu’s judgment directing the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister the ADC, Action Peoples Party (APP), Action Alliance (AA), Accord Party (AP) and Zenith Labour Party (ZLP).
The appellate court held that Justice Lifu acted in defiance of an earlier order it issued on 22 May directing him to suspend proceedings in the matter pending the determination of an appeal.
Berating the trial judge in unusually strong language, the appellate court ruled that his decision to proceed with the case despite a subsisting order from a superior court constituted a direct assault on the judicial hierarchy established by the Constitution.
“Courts are enjoined to protect their integrity. This Court has supervisory authority over the trial court,” the panel held.
“The decision of the lower court to proceed with the judgment despite the express order of this court is a brazen violation of the hierarchy of courts and the 1999 Constitution.
“This court has the duty to invoke its powers in ensuring that its orders are obeyed.”
The court consequently granted the application for a stay of execution, effectively suspending the enforcement of the judgment that sought to wipe the ADC and four other parties off Nigeria’s political map ahead of the 2027 general elections.
In delivering the now-suspended judgment, Justice Lifu had agreed with arguments advanced by the National Forum of Former Legislators (NFFL), which contended that the affected political parties had failed to meet constitutional performance thresholds required for their continued existence.
The trial court accepted the argument that the parties failed to secure the minimum electoral benchmarks prescribed under Section 225A of the Constitution and ordered INEC to withdraw recognition from them, stop accepting their nominations, and bar them from participating in future elections.
However, the Court of Appeal’s intervention has restored the status quo pending the determination of the substantive appeal.
The latest controversy comes as Justice Lifu simultaneously remains at the centre of another politically sensitive dispute involving the ADC’s internal leadership crisis.
On Tuesday, the judge rejected applications by the ADC, its National Secretary, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, Senator David Mark and other defendants seeking his recusal from a suit challenging the legality of the party’s current leadership.
The suit was filed by former ADC National Deputy Chairman (North-East), Nafiu Bala Gombe, who claims he should assume leadership of the party following the resignation of former National Chairman Ralph Nwosu.
Gombe is asking the court to nullify all decisions taken by the David Mark-led caretaker leadership and restrain Mark and Aregbesola from acting as National Chairman and National Secretary respectively, arguing that their emergence violated both the ADC constitution and provisions of the Electoral Act.
In a strongly worded ruling, Justice Lifu dismissed allegations of bias against him, insisting that no evidence had been presented to justify his withdrawal from the case.
“There is no iota of bias found,” the judge ruled.
“There is no element of bias being painted by the applicants as alleged.”
He described the recusal applications as an abuse of court process, a form of forum shopping and a calculated attempt to intimidate the court and secure a judge more favourable to the defendants.
“The law is settled that allegations of bias are grave allegations which are not made lightly,” he said.
“Whoever alleges bias must provide clear evidence. It becomes apparent that the applicants have failed completely to prove the allegations.
“It is a cheap attempt to blackmail and intimidate the court.”
Warning against allowing litigants to choose judges, Justice Lifu said granting such applications without evidence would create a dangerous precedent capable of undermining judicial independence.
He therefore dismissed all applications seeking his withdrawal and awarded N500,000 costs each against Senator Mark and Aregbesola, bringing the total sanction to N1 million.
The judge subsequently fixed June 23 for accelerated hearing of the substantive suit.
The defendants had argued that Justice Lifu ought to step aside because the ADC had already petitioned both him and the Chief Judge before the National Judicial Council (NJC) and had also initiated legal proceedings relating to the handling of disputes involving the party.
The controversy is particularly significant because Justice Lifu inherited the matter after another Federal High Court judge, Justice Emeka Nwite, withdrew from the case.
Justice Nwite had earlier suspended proceedings while awaiting the outcome of an interlocutory appeal filed by Senator Mark, who challenged the jurisdiction of the court to interfere in what he described as the internal affairs of a political party.
Following the Supreme Court’s dismissal of that appeal, the case was reassigned to Justice Lifu after Justice Nwite stepped aside.
The twin developments have now placed Justice Lifu at the centre of mounting scrutiny, with the Court of Appeal’s unusually severe condemnation of his conduct in the deregistration case coming just as he presses ahead with a fresh legal challenge that could determine the future leadership of the ADC.
For the opposition party, the appellate court’s intervention offers temporary relief from deregistration, but the battle over its leadership remains very much alive, with Justice Lifu still presiding over a case that could significantly reshape its internal power structure ahead of the 2027 political contest.