DEREGISTRATION JUDGEMENT: ADC, Accord, 3 Others Get Reprieve As Appeal Court Halts Execution

Lower court judge lambasted for delivering judgement despite pending order

The Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal has lambasted Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court, Abuja, over the judgement he delivered on Monday, which ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister five political parties.

The Court of Appeal said Justice Lifu exhibited judicial rascality by proceeding to hear and deliver the judgement despite the appellate court’s earlier order and the pendency of the matter before it.

The court subsequently ordered a stay of execution of the judgement.

Justice Lifu had ordered the deregistration of five political parties: African Democratic Congress (ADC), Action Peoples Party (APP), Action Alliance (AA), Zenith Labour Party (ZLP), and Accord Party (AP).

The High Court held that the parties failed to meet the constitutional threshold set out in Section 225 of the 1999 Constitution.

Section 225 of the Constitution empowers INEC to deregister political parties that fail to meet stipulated constitutional requirements.

However, the panel of Justices of the Court of Appeal, led by Justice Abbah Mohammed and flanked by Justice Okon Abang and Justice Donatus Okorowo, ordered the lower court to halt proceedings in the matter until the case is heard and determined.

Justice Mohammed held that the decision of the lower court to proceed with the judgement despite the express order of the appellate court amounted to a brazen violation of judicial hierarchy and the Constitution.

“The decision of the lower court to proceed with the judgement despite the express order of this court is a brazen violation of the hierarchy of the court and the 1999 Constitution,” he said.

The appellate court went further to invoke a Supreme Court precedent in condemning Justice Lifu’s conduct.

“The decision of the lower court to proceed with the judgement despite the express order of this court is the highest form of judicial impertinence. The Supreme Court has previously held that a judge who acts in such a manner is unfit for the bench, as it amounts to judicial rascality,” the court stated.

The court added that it had a duty to assert its supervisory authority over lower courts and protect the integrity of the judicial hierarchy.

“Courts are enjoined to protect their integrity. This court has supervisory authority over the trial court. This court has the duty to exercise its powers to ensure that its orders are obeyed. The application for stay of execution is hereby granted. The enforcement of the judgement is stayed,” the panel ruled.

Before the ruling, the plaintiff in the matter, the National Forum of Former Legislators (NFFL), disagreed with submissions by the Accord Party and the four other political parties before the Court of Appeal seeking to suspend any move by INEC to implement the order.

At the hearing before the Court of Appeal in Abuja on Tuesday, Accord Party’s lawyer, Musibau Adetunbi (SAN), drew the attention of the justices to the alleged violation by the lower court, which proceeded to deliver judgement despite a pending order of 22 May staying further proceedings.

He said the order was issued by a three-member panel comprising Justices Mohammed Danjuma, Adebukola Banjoko and Oyejoju Oyewumi. He urged the appellate court to stay proceedings until all issues in the appeal were resolved.

He added that all relevant processes had been filed, including an affidavit of facts on 26 May, only for them to receive notice on Monday that the court intended to deliver judgement.

“Myself and counsel for the fourth respondent and sixth respondent (APP) drew the attention of his Lordship to your Lordships’ order. His Lordship ignored the order and proceeded to deliver judgement,” he said.

“For over 25 years of my practice, I have never seen such a direct affront to the administration of justice. The judgement was delivered in clear violation of your Lordships’ order and a gross violation of Section 287(2) of the Nigerian Constitution, which his Lordship swore to uphold,” Adetunbi added.

Counsel for INEC, I.S. Mohammed, submitted that they were unaware of the developments in court on Monday and were not opposed to the positions advanced by both sides.

Counsel for the Attorney-General of the Federation, Prof. J.O. Oladoke, aligned with INEC’s submission.

All lawyers representing the political parties seeking to stop the deregistration urged the court to exercise its disciplinary jurisdiction against the lower court.

In opposition, counsel for the National Forum of Former Legislators (NFFL), Yakubu Ruba (SAN), argued that he was not served with the notice of appeal that gave rise to the 22 May order for stay, adding that he only became aware of it through a colleague, Gbenga Makanjuola Esq.

He therefore urged the court not to grant a stay of execution on the ground of lack of fair hearing.

Party Deregistration: APM, ZLP Back Appeal Court Ruling, Demand Fair Political Competition

However, the Allied Peoples Movement (APM) and the Zenith Labour Party (ZLP) have hailed the Court of Appeal’s decision in the political party deregistration case, insisting that Nigeria’s democracy can only thrive when diverse political voices are allowed to operate on a level playing field.

The parties said attempts to weaken or deregister smaller political platforms undermine democratic plurality and restrict citizens’ choices in the political process.

Speaking on Channels Television’s Politics Today programme on Tuesday night, the National Chairman of APM, Yusuf Dantalle, and his ZLP counterpart, Dan Nwanyanwu, defended the appellate court’s position while criticising what they described as efforts to marginalise smaller political parties.

Dantalle maintained that no political party should be regarded as weak, stressing that political parties are public institutions rather than private property.

“A political party is public property. It is not meant to be anybody’s property. That is why parties are regulated and their accounts are audited by INEC,” he said.

He added that parties in government often enjoy advantages not available to smaller parties, making political competition uneven.

“There are many things parties in government can do that ordinary citizens or leaders of smaller parties cannot easily afford. Until political parties operate on equal and fair footing, these challenges will continue,” he said.

The APM chairman urged stakeholders to focus on addressing the root causes of challenges facing political parties rather than pursuing measures that could weaken political diversity.

On his part, Nwanyanwu described the Court of Appeal’s decision as a victory for the rule of law and evidence-based justice.

He questioned the ruling of Justice Peter Lifu at the lower court, alleging that critical evidence presented by the affected parties was not adequately considered.

“The law is based on facts and evidence. It is not based on persuasion. It is not based on somebody teleguiding you,” he said.

He also argued that several political parties met constitutional requirements for continued registration, citing electoral victories at local government and councillorship levels.

Nwanyanwu further alleged procedural irregularities in the handling of the matter at the lower court, maintaining that these concerns necessitated recourse to the appellate court.

He commended the Court of Appeal for what he described as a more thorough evaluation of the facts before arriving at its decision.