Appeal Court Voids Judgement Directing INEC to Deregister ADC, APP, AA, Others

• Judgement vindicates party, reaffirms supremacy of rule of law, says opposition party 

•ADC berates lower court for seeking to manufacture evidence in negation of INEC’s affidavit that opposition parties didn’t meet threshold for deregistration

The Court of Appeal, Abuja, yesterday, cleared the 2027 road for African Democratic Congress (ADC), after it nullified the judgement of a Federal High Court that ordered Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister the opposition party and four others.

A three-member panel of the Court of Appeal, in a judgement delivered yesterday, held that the trial court was wrong to have assumed jurisdiction in the suit filed by a non-juristic person.

Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court, Abuja, had on June 15 ordered INEC to deregister the five political parties because they failed to comply with the provisions of Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution.

Dissatisfied, the parties – ADC, Action Peoples Party (APP), Action Alliance (AA), Accord Party (AP), and Zenith Labour Party (ZLP) – approached the appellate court to upturn the judgement of the trial court.

They among others argued that Lifu erred in law when he entertained the suit filed by the Incorporated Trustees of the National Forum of Former Legislators (NFFL).

According to the appellants, NFFL lacked the necessary legal authority (locus standi) to bring the suit before the court, in the first place.

They, therefore, urged the court to allow their appeal and reverse the order of the Federal High Court to INEC to deregister them.

Delivering judgement in the five appeals, the three-member panel of the appeal court, in a unanimous judgement, agreed with the appellants, and declared as “null and void” the judgement delivered by Lifu on June 15.

On the issue of locus, the appellate court held that since the plaintiff/respondent lacked the legal authority to file the suit, the trial court was wrong to have assumed jurisdiction.

It added that the orders made against the electoral umpire were incompetent and amounted to a nullity.

The appellate court also pointed out that contrary to the findings of the trial court, “The evidence before the court clearly shows a compliance with Section 225A of the constitution”.

On the refusal of the trial court to obey the ruling of the appellate court directing a stay of proceedings, the panel stated, “What the learned trial court did amounts to judicial impertinence or what the Supreme Court called judicial insubordination.”

Justice Abba Mohammed, who delivered the lead judgement, subsequently held that all the affected political parties remained duly registered.

The appellate court also awarded a cost of N1 million against NFFL, which had filed the case against the five political parties.

The Court of Appeal had on June 16 suspended the judgement of Lifu pending the hearing and determination of the case of the appellants.

The appellate court predicated its decision on the grounds that the judgement was delivered without jurisdiction.

The appellants had in their application for stay argued that the trial judge acted in total disregard of the orders of the Court of Appeal directing him to stay further proceedings in the matter, pending the hearing and determination of an interlocutory appeal before the appellate court.

Reacting, the three-member panel, whose members took turns to lambast Lifu for disregarding the orders of the appellate court, subsequently ordered a stay of execution of the judgement directing the de-registration of the affected parties.

According to the justices, the trial court exhibited judicial rascality by going ahead to hear and make the order, despite the order of the Court of Appeal and the pendency of the matter before the court.

The panel further berated Lifu specifically for flouting the appellate court’s order of May 22, which ordered him to suspend further proceedings at the trial court.

Faulting Lifu further, the appellate court observed that his action amounted to an affront on the hierarchy of courts, as well as “the highest form of judicial impertinence”.

Citing earlier verdicts of the Supreme Court, Mohammed held that a judge who acted in such manner “is unfit for the bench as it amounts to judicial rascality”.

While stating that courts were enjoined to protect their integrity, Mohammed stated that the Court of Appeal had supervisory authority over the trial court.

He added that the decision of the trial court to proceed with the judgement, despite the express order of the appeal court, was a brazen violation of the hierarchy of the court and the 1999 Constitution.

Mohammed held, “This court has the duty to invoke its powers in ensuring that its orders are made. The application for stay of execution is hereby granted. The enforcement of the judgement is stayed.”

The appellate court subsequently fixed June 25, for definite hearing in all the appeals.

Lifu had ordered INEC to deregister the five political parties while delivering judgement in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/2637/25.

The plaintiff, Incorporated Trustees of the National Forum of Former Legislators (NFFL), had dragged INEC, the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), and the affected political parties before the court, seeking an order of the court compelling INEC to deregister the parties for failing to win any elective office in the last general election.

The initial originating summons had only the ADC as the political party targeted for deregistration, but it was subsequently amended to include the four others whose continued existence were said to have constituted a breach of the constitution.

The judge ordered INEC to immediately deregister the five political parties on the grounds of alleged constitutional breaches.

He further barred INEC from according the parties recognition, nor accepting candidates nominated by the affected parties or giving effects to their activities for the purpose of participating in the 2027 general election.

Lifu, in addition, directed the parties to stop parading themselves as registered political parties in the country, on the grounds that they breached Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution, Section 75 (4) of the Electoral Act, 2022, and applicable provisions of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019.

The court held that having failed to secure at least 25 per cent of votes cast in one state in a presidential election, winning a local government area in a governorship election, or clinching at least one seat in elections ranging from councillorship to the National Assembly, INEC was duty bound to deregister them.

Although INEC, in its opposition to the suit, tendered documents showing that the affected political parties were well qualified to be on the ballot in 2027, having won various elective positions in the 2023 and other recent elections, the court went ahead to order their deregistration.

Judgement Vindicates Party, Reaffirms Supremacy of Rule of Law, Declares Atiku

The presidential candidate of ADC, Atiku Abubakar, commended the Court of Appeal for clearing the legal hurdle against his participation in next year’s general election.

A statement by Atiku’s media office said, “We warmly welcome the landmark judgement of the Court of Appeal, which set aside the erroneous judgement of the Federal High Court that sought to remove the African Democratic Congress (ADC) and other political parties from Nigeria’s democratic space.

“We congratulate the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal for their courage, fidelity to the constitution, and unwavering commitment to justice.

“Their judgement is a reassuring affirmation that the judiciary remains the last hope of the common man and the ultimate guardian of constitutional democracy.

“At a time when many Nigerians are anxious about the future of democratic governance, the court has demonstrated that justice, when courageously dispensed, remains the strongest defence against arbitrariness.

“With this Court of Appeal judgement validating the legal status of ADC plus the judgement of Hon. Justice Liman of the Federal High Court, Abuja Division, affirming the Election of Senator David Mark’s led exco of ADC, the leading opposition party has finally navigated its ways to the ballot for the 2027 general elections, as there’s no suit pending that challenges its leadership again.’’

The media office said the appellate court rightly held that the judgement delivered on 15 June by Lifu was a nullity, having been rendered in disobedience to a subsisting order of the Court of Appeal.

It further found that the respondents lacked the locus standi to institute the action, describing their claims as speculative and legally unsustainable.

The statement said the appellate court also clarified that Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution must be interpreted disjunctively, not conjunctively, and held that since the Osun and Ekiti election cycles were still active when the suit was filed, the action was premature.

Atiku’s media office said equally significant was the court’s finding that the trial court ignored the uncontroverted affidavit evidence of INEC, which confirmed that the ADC and the other affected political parties had complied with all constitutional and statutory requirements.

The Atiku media office said 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.

It stated, “This judgement is far more than a legal victory for the ADC. It is a victory for every Nigerian who believes that democracy must be nurtured through free political competition rather than strangled through speculative litigation.

“The strength of a democracy lies not in the exclusion of political opponents but in allowing the people to freely determine their leaders through the ballot.

“We urge anti-democratic forces to resist the dangerous temptation of using the courts and other institutions of the state as instruments of political engineering. The judiciary must never be transformed into a battlefield for eliminating political competitors or shrinking the democratic space.

“Such conduct undermines public confidence in our institutions and diminishes the sacrifices made by countless Nigerians in the struggle to enthrone constitutional democracy.”

The statement added, “As the nation moves steadily towards the 2027 general election, political contests must be settled by the votes of Nigerians—not by contrived lawsuits designed to achieve through the courtroom what cannot be won at the ballot box.

“We, once again, express our profound appreciation to the distinguished Justices of the Court of Appeal for their courageous, impartial and constitutionally grounded judgement. Their decision has strengthened public confidence in the administration of justice and reaffirmed that, in Nigeria, the rule of law remains superior to political expediency.

“We remain confident that truth, justice and the democratic will of the Nigerian people will always prevail.”

ADC: Court of Appeal Has Vindicated Us, Justice Peter Lifu Concocted His Evidence

ADC welcomed the unanimous judgement of the Court of Appeal setting aside in its entirety the judgement of the Federal High Court, which directed INEC to deregister the party and four others.

In statement by National Publicity Secretary of ADC, Bolaji Abdullahi, the party said, “We take particular note of the declaration of the Court of Appeal that the trial judge, Justice Peter Lifu, actually concocted evidence in favour of the plaintiff on this matter while accusing the judge of flagrant disobedience to the directives of the superior court, describing his conduct as judicial indiscipline, impertinence and insubordination.”

ADC described the decision of the appeal court as a vindication of the position consistently maintained by the party from the outset: that the case did not have any merit, and that the proceedings were fundamentally flawed in law, unsupported by evidence, and incapable of producing a valid judgement.

ADC stated, “We are also delighted that the Court of Appeal further upheld our contention that the plaintiffs lacked the requisite locus standi to institute the action in the first place.

“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 had found insufficient to invoke the jurisdiction.”

ADC considered as extraordinary, findings by the Appeal Court that Lifu concocted evidence in resolving the dispute in favour of the plaintiff.

Abdullahi stated, “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 wilful 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 asking the court to deregister the ADC and four other political parties, the plaintiffs, which curiously would later include the Attorney General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi, had relied on their weird interpretation of Section 225A of the Constitution, which specified the criteria that a political must meet to continue to exist.

“We consider this judgement 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 the court.”

The statement said, “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.

“Our focus remains unchanged. We will continue to strengthen our party, deepen democratic participation, and offer Nigerians the credible alternative they deserve.”