***Court awards N100m fine against ADC chieftain over suit against judges

By Ikechukwu Nnochiri

ABUJA — The Court of Appeal in Abuja will today hear substantive appeals seeking to set aside the judgment that ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, to deregister African Democratic Congress, ADC, and four other political parties.

The appeals will be heard by a three-member panel, led by Justice Abba Mohammed.

The panel had, on June 25, okayed a full-blown hearing of the appeals after house-keeping proceedings that enabled the parties in the matter to identify and regularise all the processes they had filed.

Aside from the ADC, the other parties seeking nullification of the Federal High Court judgment are the Action Peoples Party, APP; Action Alliance, AA;  Accord Party, AP; and the Zenith Labour Party, ZLP.

It will be recalled that the Appeal Court had, on June 16, ordered a stay of execution of the High Court judgment, even as it slammed the trial judge for disregarding the judicial hierarchy.

The panel berated Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja for disobeying an order it had made on May 22, which directed him to stay proceedings in the case, pending the outcome of an appeal by the parties.

According to the appellate court, though the trial judge’s attention had been drawn to the order for a stay of proceedings, he intentionally flouted it and went ahead to deliver the judgment.

It held that Justice Lifu’s action was “a form of judicial impertinence,” stressing that the Supreme Court had previously held that a judge who acts in such a manner “is unfit for the bench, as the conduct amounts to judicial rascality.”

The High Court had directed INEC to deregister the five political parties, which it said had failed to meet the constitutional requirements needed to warrant their continued existence and participation in future elections.

It also barred INEC from further according recognition to the parties, accepting nominations of candidates from the affected parties, or giving effect to their activities for purposes of participating in the 2027 general elections.

Justice Lifu ordered the defendants to stop parading themselves as registered political parties in the country, saying he found merit in the suit filed against them by the National Forum of Former Legislators, NFFL.

The NFFL had, in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2637/2026, asked the court to determine whether INEC has a constitutional obligation to remove political parties that fail to meet the electoral performance thresholds set out in Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), as reinforced by the Electoral Act 2022 and INEC’s regulations.

It was the plaintiffs’ position that the five political parties listed as defendants had persistently failed to meet the constitutional benchmarks required to retain their registration.

The former legislators stressed that the requirements include winning at least 25 per cent of the votes in a state during a presidential election, or securing at least one elective seat at the national, state, or local government level.

They told the court that the ADC and the four other parties had performed poorly in both the 2023 general elections and the by-elections conducted by INEC, thereby failing to win seats across key tiers of government.

The litigants insisted that the continued existence of the ADC and the other defendants as recognised political parties is unlawful and undermines the integrity of the country’s electoral system.

Notably, the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, who is also a defendant in the matter, threw his weight behind the plaintiffs.

In processes filed before the court, the AGF argued that the continued existence of the said political parties violates extant provisions of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and ultimately undermines the nation’s electoral integrity.

The AGF argued that unless the court intervened, INEC would continue to act in breach of its constitutional duty by retaining parties that have failed to meet the minimum requirements prescribed by law.

However, dissatisfied with the trial court’s verdict, all the defendants, including INEC, have urged the appellate court to set it aside.

Court awards N100m fine against ADC chieftain over suit against judges

Meanwhile, the Federal High Court, Abuja, yesterday ordered the National Welfare Secretary of  African Democratic Congress, ADC, Mr. Nkemakolam Ukandu, to pay the sum of N100 million for filing a suit against judges.

It ordered the plaintiff to pay N50 million each to the Chief Judge, John Tsoho, and a judge of the court, Justice Peter Lifu.

The court made the orders in a ruling delivered by Justice Salim Ibrahim, following an oral application made by counsel to the two judges, Mr. J. U. K. Igwe.

According to the court, the cost must be paid within 14 days.

Moreover, Justice Ibrahim struck out Mr. Ukandu’s case for lack of diligent prosecution.

It will be recalled that the ADC chieftain filed the action against the two judges, accusing them of bias and disobedience of a directive of the Supreme Court on the leadership crisis rocking the party. He also cited the National Judicial Council (NJC) as a defendant in the matter.

In his suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1165/2026, the plaintiff sought an order to compel the NJC to investigate allegations of corruption, abuse of judicial powers, and bias levelled against the two judges.

He specifically queried the reassignment of the suit challenging the Senator David Mark-led leadership of the ADC — which was previously being heard by Justice Emeka Nwite — to Justice Lifu.

Meanwhile, when the case was called on Monday, neither the plaintiff nor his lawyer was in court.

Consequently, Justice Ibrahim, who had on June 30 threatened to dismiss the suit after the litigant failed to appear for the hearing, proceeded to do so on Monday with punitive costs.

The Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered the National Welfare Secretary of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Nkemakolam Ukandu, to pay a total of N100 million in damages to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho, and Justice Peter Lifu over a suit the court struck out for lack of diligent prosecution.

Justice Salim Ibrahim, who delivered the ruling on Monday, ordered Ukandu to pay N50 million each to Justice Tsoho and Justice Lifu within 14 days.

The order followed an oral application by counsel to the two judges, Mr J. U. K. Igwe, SAN.

Earlier, Justice Ibrahim struck out Ukandu’s suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1165/2026, after finding that the plaintiff had failed to diligently prosecute the matter.

Ukandu had sued the National Judicial Council (NJC), Justice Tsoho and Justice Lifu over allegations of judicial bias and disobedience to court orders. He sought an order compelling the NJC to investigate claims of corruption, abuse of judicial powers, and bias allegedly committed by the two judges.

However, the plaintiff and his lawyer repeatedly failed to appear before Justice Ibrahim after the case was assigned to him.

The judge had, on June 30, warned that the suit could be dismissed if neither Ukandu nor his counsel appeared at subsequent proceedings.

The case arose from the ongoing leadership dispute within the ADC involving an aggrieved party member, Nafiu-Bala Gombe, whose substantive suit is pending before Justice Lifu.

Gombe is seeking a court order restraining the leadership of the party, led by former Senate President David Mark, from presenting themselves as the legitimate leaders of the ADC.

Ukandu, who is seeking to be joined in that case, accused Justice Tsoho and Justice Lifu of manifest bias and alleged that they were acting in the interest of certain individuals against the party.

In his originating suit, Ukandu challenged the decision of the Chief Judge to reassign the leadership dispute from Justice Emeka Nwite to Justice Lifu, arguing that the reassignment violated both an earlier order of Justice Nwite and a decision of the Supreme Court.

The Labour Party has commended the ruling issued by the Court of Appeal, Owerri Judicial Division, on July 2, 2026, describing it as a reaffirmation of the legitimacy of its recognized national leadership under Senator Nenadi Usman to initiate and manage legal proceedings on behalf of the party.

This ruling was delivered in Appeal No. CA/OW/104/2026: Labour Party & 14 Others v. Abia State Independent Electoral Commission & 4 Others, which addresses a pre-election dispute arising from earlier proceedings at the Federal High Court.

According to a statement released on Monday by the party’s National Publicity Secretary, Ken Asogwa, the appeal had been filed in the name of the Labour Party without the knowledge, consent, or authorization of the party’s recognized national leadership.

The statement further explained that upon discovering the appeal, the National Legal Adviser, Mrs. Taiwo Mary Ajayi, Esq., instructed Mr. C. Okoroafor through a formal letter dated June 22, 2026, to represent the party and take the necessary steps to withdraw the case.

During the proceedings at the Court of Appeal, two different attorneys appeared on behalf of the Labour Party, prompting the court to request documentary evidence confirming their authority to represent the party.

While Mrs. A. Oteh, who initiated the appeal, presented a letter allegedly issued by Mr. C. K. Igara, who claimed to be the Labour Party’s South-East Vice Chairman, Mr. Okoroafor relied on a formal authorization letter from the National Legal Adviser representing the party’s recognized national leadership.

After reviewing the documents, the appellate court acknowledged the authority granted through the Office of the National Legal Adviser as the legitimate representation of the Labour Party.

As a result, Mrs. Oteh withdrew both her representation for the party and the counter-affidavit previously submitted against the application for the withdrawal of the appeal. The court subsequently rejected the appeal and imposed costs of N100,000 against the counsel who acted under the alleged authority of Mr. Igara.

In response to the ruling, the Labour Party stated that the decision reinforces the legal principle that only the officially recognized national leadership of the party, through authorized representatives, has the right to engage legal counsel and to initiate, defend, or maintain legal actions in the name of the party.

The party further asserted that the ruling effectively reaffirmed Senator Nenadi Usman’s leadership as the legitimate and legally recognized authority of the Labour Party.

Additionally, it pledged to persist in contesting what it termed as efforts by unauthorized individuals, including Barrister Julius Abure and Mr. C. K. Igara, to represent the party or conduct legal proceedings on its behalf without proper authority.

Reiterating its dedication to democratic principles, the Labour Party committed to upholding the rule of law, constitutional order, internal party discipline, respect for judicial decisions, and the safeguarding of its corporate identity and institutional integrity.