***Slams Justice Lifu’s action

***Verdict corrected grave miscarriage of justice — ADC

By Ikechukwu Nnochiri, Luminous Jannamike & Shina Abubakar 

ABUJA — The Court of Appeal in Abuja yesterday,  vacated the judgment that directed the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, to deregister African Democratic Congress, ADC, and four other political parties accused of failing to meet constitutional requirements, describing Justice Peter Lifu’s action as judicial rascality, impertinence.

The other parties include  Action Peoples Party, APP; Action Alliance, AA;  Accord Party, AP; and Zenith Labour Party, ZLP.

Recall that Justice Lifu had given the order to deregister the parties, despite the order made by the appellate court on May 22, directing him to stay proceedings in the case, pending the outcome of an appeal by the parties.

The appellate court, in a unanimous decision by a three-member panel of Justices yesterday, held that the order which the Federal High Court issued to the electoral body on June 15, amounted to a nullity.

It held that the High Court wrongly assumed jurisdiction and made the order on an incompetent suit that was filed by a non-juristic entity.

However, ADC in a swift reaction, described the verdict as correction of miscarriage of justice, and hailed the Appeal Court for doing so.

National Chairman of ADC, Senator David Mark, in his reaction, described the party’s deregistration bid as an assault on democracy, while the presidential candidate for the 2027 elections, Atiku Abubakar, said the forthcoming election must be won at the ballot and not in court.

Osun State governor, Ademola Adeleke, who is contesting his second term ticket on the platform of Accord Party, said ruling has put to rest efforts to keep him off the ballot paper.

According to the appellate court, there was no valid suit that could have warranted the consequential order that directed INEC to derecognise the political parties.

It noted that the trial court failed to properly evaluate evidence placed before it, stressing that proof that the parties won various seats in previous elections was ignored.

It also held that the High Court acted in defiance of an order that directed it to stay proceedings in the case.

It held that the high court ought to have dismissed the substantive case for want of jurisdiction and merit.

Consequently, the appellate court, in its lead judgment delivered by Justice Abba Mohammed, held that all the affected political parties remained duly registered.

It allowed separate appeals filed by the political parties and awarded monetary costs against the National Forum of Former Legislators, NFFL, which filed the case against them.

It will be recalled that the appellate 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 directing him to stay proceedings in the case, pending the outcome of an appeal by the parties.

It noted that 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 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 acted 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 according further 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 by the NFFL. 

The NFFL had, in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2637/2026, asked the court to determine whether INEC had a constitutional obligation to remove political parties that failed 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 lawmakers 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 was unlawful and undermined 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 violated extant provisions of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and ultimately undermined 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 had failed to meet the minimum requirements prescribed by law.

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

Verdict corrected grave miscarriage of justice — ADC

Reacting to the verdict yesterday, African Democratic Congress, ADC, hailed it, saying the appellate court found that trial judge, Justice Peter Lifu, had ‘concocted evidence’ in favour of the plaintiffs.

The party, in a statement by the National Publicity Secretary, Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi, said the appellate court’s decision vindicated the ADC’s long-held position that the suit was legally flawed, unsupported by evidence and incapable of producing a valid judgment.

Abdullahi said: “The ADC also considers as extraordinary the finding by the Court of Appeal that Justice Peter Lifu concocted evidence in resolving the dispute in favour of the plaintiff.

“We believe this goes to the very heart of the integrity of the judiciary and the judicial process. We note that this is the second time in cases involving the ADC that Justice Peter Lifu would be coming under serious indictment by the superior court for willful disobedience and judicial insubordination and impertinence. 

‘’We, therefore, wonder whether such a roundly discredited judge should be allowed to sit on the bench, even for a day longer.

“In striking out the case for want of jurisdiction, the Court of Appeal declared that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate any legal interest peculiar to themselves, relying instead on speculative assertions that they had previously contested elections and might do so again in future, which the court found insufficient to invoke its jurisdiction. 

“We consider this judgment significant, not merely because it restores the rights of the affected political parties but because it reinforces an enduring constitutional principle: that judicial authority must always be exercised within the bounds of the law, in obedience to superior court orders, and on the basis of evidence properly before it.

“The ADC has always maintained its confidence in the judicial process. We are gratified that the Court of Appeal has reaffirmed the rule of law, corrected a grave miscarriage of justice, and protected the constitutional rights of political parties against unlawful interference.” 

ADC deregistration bid was assault on democracy, David Mark declares

Similarly, the National Chairman of the party, Senator David Mark, declared that the failed attempt to deregister the party was ‘a direct assault on multiparty democracy,’ hailing the Court of Appeal for the ruling.

Mark, in a statement signed by his Special Adviser on Media and Publicity, Kola Ologbondiyan, described the Court of Appeal’s verdict as a victory for the ADC, democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law, saying it reaffirmed the judiciary’s role as the guardian of democratic values.

“The attempt to deregister the ADC was a direct assault on multiparty democracy and an unfortunate effort to undermine the constitutional right of Nigerians to freely associate and participate in the political process,” Mark declared.

He argued that the implications of the judgment extended far beyond the fortunes of the ADC.

He said it had strengthened confidence in the courts as protectors of constitutional freedoms and political pluralism.

Mark said:  “The verdict is a reassuring reminder that our judiciary can still rise above pressure and protect democracy, political pluralism and the constitutional rights of citizens and political parties.”

The former Senate President also said the judgment had restored confidence in the nation’s judiciary, describing the courts as the last hope of the common man and a dependable defender of the rule of law.

He commended the Justices of the Court of Appeal for what he described as their courage, impartiality and fidelity to justice, expressing confidence that the ruling would further strengthen public trust in Nigeria’s democratic institutions.

On the party’s next assignment, Mark urged ADC candidates, members and supporters across the country to remain united and intensify grassroots mobilisation, ahead of the 2027 general elections.

2027 election must be won at ballot, not in court — Atiku

In his reaction, former Vice President and the party’s presidential candidate for 2027 elections, Atiku Abubakar,  declared that the general election must be decided at the ballot box, not in the courtroom

In a statement issued by his media office in Abuja, Atiku congratulated the Justices of the Court of Appeal for what he described as their courage, fidelity to the Constitution and unwavering commitment to justice, saying the judgment had reinforced public confidence in the judiciary and strengthened constitutional democracy.

“As the nation advances towards the 2027 general elections, political contests must be decided by the votes of Nigerians, not by contrived lawsuits seeking to achieve in the courtroom what cannot be won at the ballot box,” he said.

According to him, the appellate court’s ruling, alongside an earlier judgment by Justice Liman of the Federal High Court, Abuja Division, affirming the Senator David Mark-led National Executive Committee of the ADC, has effectively brought to an end all litigation challenging the party’s leadership ahead of the 2027 general election.

He said the development firmly established the ADC’s legal standing to participate in the polls.

Atiku noted further that the Court of Appeal held that the judgment delivered on June 15 by Justice Lifu was a nullity because it was rendered in disobedience to a subsisting order of the appellate court, adding added that the respondents lacked the locus standi to institute the action.

While describing the plaintiffs’ claims as speculative and legally unsustainable, Atiku also said the appellate court clarified that Section 225A of the Constitution should be interpreted disjunctively rather than conjunctively, holding that the suit was premature because the Osun and Ekiti election cycles were still ongoing when the action was filed.

According to Atiku, the appellate court equally faulted the trial court for disregarding the uncontroverted affidavit evidence presented by the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, confirming that the ADC and the other affected political parties had complied with all constitutional and statutory requirements.

“Having accepted INEC’s evidence, the lower court had no legal basis to manufacture additional conditions in order to arrive at what the Court of Appeal rightly described as a perverse decision,” he added.

Atiku described the judgment as extending far beyond the fortunes of a single political party, saying it represented a victory for constitutional democracy, the rule of law and every Nigerian who believed in free political competition.

Plot to stop Adeleke thwarted — Gov’s camp

Also reacting to the Court of Appeal judgement, the Commissioner for Information and Public Enlightenment in Osun State, Mr Kolapo Alimi, said the ruling had put to rest efforts to keep Governor Ademola Adeleke off the ballot paper.

Alimi, who spoke at an Accord Party rally in Ede yesterday, said the judgement vindicated the party that the APC was afraid of a contest, noting that it had no choice than to face Governor Adeleke’s growing popularity.

He said: “It is crystal clear now that APC is not facing an empty post, there is a divine goal keeper at the goal post and will continue to keep it safe till 2030.

“The Court of Appeal has put to rest the shenanigans of the lower court and the rule of law has prevailed. Governor Adeleke re-election bid is unstoppable and will complete his second term.”

He called on the residents of the state to troop out en masse to vote for Governor Adeleke again during the August 15 polls.

IPAC seeks NJC probe of FHC judgment

On its part, the Inter-Party Advisory Council, IPAC, urged the National Judicial Council, NJC, to investigate court judgments it said were inconsistent with the Constitution, following the Court of Appeal’s decision.

IPAC’s National Publicity Secretary, Comrade Egbeola Wale Martins, said in a statement that the Court of Appeal had delivered a courageous affirmation of constitutional democracy and Nigeria’s multi-party system.

“The appellate court’s decision is a courageous reaffirmation of constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the sanctity of Nigeria’s multi-party democratic system.

‘’It restores confidence in the judiciary as the last hope of the common man and demonstrates that the constitutional guarantees of political participation and freedom of association remain protected under our democratic order,” the council said.