Is Justice Peter Lifu’s judgment against the Senator David Mark-led executive of the African Democratic Congress impartial or a plot to prevent the opposition party from participating in the 2027 elections? Davidson Iriekpen asks
Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja last Thursday stirred the already tense political atmosphere when he declared the Senator David Mark-led executive of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) illegal and invalidated the actions it had taken on behalf of the party.
Among the affected decisions was the nomination of former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar as the party’s presidential candidate for the 2027 general election. Atiku has since chosen former Rivers State Governor, Rotimi Amaechi, as his running mate.
The judgment also cast doubt on the candidacies of no fewer than 1,503 people contesting various positions under the party.
ADC has on its list 28 governorship candidates, 108 senatorial hopefuls, 352 House of Representatives standard bearers, and 1,015 Houses of Assembly picks for the 2027 general election.
Justice Lifu’s followed a suit filed by Nafiu Bala Gombe, a former National Deputy Chairman (North-East) of the ADC, who challenged the process through which the Mark-led caretaker committee assumed control of the party.
Gombe argued that following the resignation of the former National Chairman, Chief Ralph Nwosu, he was entitled to take over the party’s leadership. He consequently asked the court to nullify the actions of the Mark-led leadership and restrain Mark and Rauf Aregbesola from presenting themselves as the party’s National Chairman and National Secretary, respectively. He maintained that their emergence violated the ADC constitution and the Electoral Act.
The judgment is expected to be challenged at the Court of Appeal, with the possibility of a further appeal to the Supreme Court. This would reopen a dispute that has already travelled through the appellate courts.
Last April, the Supreme Court restored the Mark-led leadership but directed the Federal High Court, where the case originated, to conclude proceedings on the substantive matter.
When Gombe initially filed the suit, it was before Justice Emeka Nwite, who directed him to put the defendants on notice to show cause why his application should not be granted. Following Nwite’s elevation to the Court of Appeal, the case was reassigned to Justice Lifu.
However, the reassignment raised concerns within the ADC over Lifu’s handling of previous cases involving opposition political parties. The party’s National Welfare Secretary, Nkemakolam Ukandu, subsequently asked the judge to recuse himself from the case.
In a motion filed on June 5, Ukandu cited a pending petition to the National Judicial Council (NJC) against Lifu and the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho. The petition accused them of corruption, disobedience to Supreme Court orders and manifest bias. Ukandu had also instituted a separate suit against the NJC and the two judges.
The ADC National Secretary, Aregbesola, also filed a suit seeking Lifu’s withdrawal from the case, citing an alleged lack of confidence in the judge.
Despite the applications, Lifu emboldened by Tsoho, declined to recuse himself and instead ordered an accelerated hearing of the matter.
In another case involving the ADC, Justice Lifu in June, ordered INEC to deregister party and four other political parties.
The order was sequel to a frivolous suit filed by the National Forum of Former Legislators, praying 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 Court of Appeal that rescued the party less than 24 hours later by suspending the execution of the judgment.
Due to the outrage the judgment generated, the appellate court did not mince words in conveying its dissatisfaction with the judge, describing his decision as the highest form of judicial impertinence. It also accused him of brazenly disregarding an earlier order of the appellate court and described his conduct as judicial rascality.
The justices ordered a stay of the execution of the judgment. They held that Justice Lifu’s action amounted to an affront to the hierarchy of courts.
Before last Thursday’s judgment by Justice Lifu, two other Federal High Courts had upheld the Mark-led leadership of the ADC.
For instance, in March, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court in Abuja dismissed the suit of the presidential candidate of the party in 2023, Dumebi Kachikwu and four others challenging the Mark-led leadership. She held that the issues raised by the plaintiffs concerned the internal leadership and membership of the party, which are non-justiciable, and therefore outside the court’s jurisdiction.
Also in July, another Federal High Court in Abuja, presided over by Justice Musa Liman, dismissed a suit filed by a member of the House of Representatives, Leke Abejide, challenging the leadership of the ADC led by the same Mark-led leadership, holding that the party’s new leadership emerged in line with its constitution and the law.
The judge awarded N2 million in costs to each of the defendants, to be paid by Abejide. He also awarded a N10 million fine against Abejide’s lawyer.
Therefore, when Justice Lifu last Thursday delivered judgment against the ADC, many were not surprised. To members of the party, the judgment was a culmination of a well-orchestrated script to prevent the party from participating in the 2027 elections.
Through his bias judgments, Justice Lifu was severally accused of playing a critical role in the destabilisation of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). Also in the Rivers State political crisis, he was accused of delivering judgments that suggested that he was in support of certain interests.
Going forward, the ADC’s immediate option is to challenge the judgment at the Court of Appeal. But the timing of the legal battle is critical. With the 2027 elections fast approaching, delays could have serious consequences for the party and its candidates.
This is why appellate courts must give any appeal arising from the judgment urgent consideration, while the judiciary must protect its independence and guard against being used to undermine opposition parties. INEC, too, must remain impartial and guided by the Constitution as the dispute unfolds.