Chuks Okocha in Abuja
The African Democratic Congress (ADC) demanded the immediate release of Justice Peter Lifu’s judgment.
The ADC said that Justice Lifu had declared in open court that copies of the judgement were ready, but lamented that ”Our counsel applied for the certified copy and paid the required fee, yet the judgment remains out of reach”
In a statement Monday, Phrank Shaibu, the ADC Presidential Campaign Director of Strategic Communication, said that the inability to make the certified true copies of the judgement to party’s lawyers is indefensible.
According to Shalini, ”This is an indefensible denial of access to a ruling that directly affects the party and its members. If the judgment was ready, there is no excuse for keeping it from the parties. Release it now.
”Our counsel for the first defendant filed a formal application for the certified true copy on 6 November 2026 and paid the assessed fee. Counsel for the third defendant applied the day before, on the very day the judgment was delivered.
”Both applications carry the Federal High Court’s “PAID” stamp. Every requirement was met. Yet the applicants are still being denied the judgment.
”This is not a routine administrative delay. It is a denial of access to a court decision that directly affects the rights of the parties. Justice Lifu declared the judgment is ready; the applicants paid for its certified copy; the court has acknowledged payment.
”Why, then, are they still being kept in the dark? A judge cannot announce that a judgment is ready and leave litigants to chase the document they need to understand and challenge it.”, the ADC Director of Strategic Communication stated.
The judgment concerns the leadership of ADC and the rights of its members.
Shauib said that ”Withholding its certified copy prevents the affected parties from knowing the exact orders made and responding fully through the courts. If the ruling is sound, there is no justification for keeping it out of reach.
”The Federal High Court must release the judgment immediately and explain why paid applications have gone unanswered. Public confidence cannot survive a process in which consequential judgments are announced, but their official records are denied to the parties.”
He said that ADC had formally objected to Justice Lifu presiding over this matter as the National Secretary Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola raised serious concerns about the judge’s impartiality, citing previous appellate decisions that, in the party’s view, called his competence and neutrality into question.
According to the ADC Presidential Campaign Director of Strategic Communication, ”Those concerns were placed on record. The unexplained withholding of the judgment now compounds them and demands answers.
”The timing and conduct of this process are indefensible. Justice Lifu delivered the judgment days after the ADC launched its Sokoto campaign; he then declared the copies ready, yet the parties’ paid applications remain unanswered.
”The public is entitled to ask whether this was a judicial process—or a calculated attempt to deliver a political blow while denying the party the document needed to challenge it. Whoever believes that withholding the judgment will bury these questions or shield those responsible from scrutiny is gravely mistaken.”, Shauib stated.
The ADC presidential campaign demanded thus, ”We demand the immediate release of the certified judgment and a public explanation for the delay. Every day it is withheld deepens the damage to confidence in the judiciary.
”Those responsible must understand that the ADC will pursue every lawful remedy, place the full record before the appropriate authorities and ensure that Nigerians know what has happened. No party, official or judicial officer is beyond scrutiny when the rights of citizens and the integrity of the electoral process are at stake.
”The ADC will not be intimidated or denied its right to challenge this ruling. Any attempt to obstruct that right will be met with every lawful action available, and those responsible will be held to account through the proper legal and institutional channels. Justice must be done, its record must be accessible, and the consequences of denying the parties that access must not be evaded”.