Enough of Justice Lifu’s ‘Rascality’

While the swift intervention of the Court of Appeal may have saved five political parties from deregistration and the judiciary a huge embarrassment, the conduct of Justice Peter Lifu, which the appellate court described as judicial rascality, and the conduct of some high court judges need to be checked before they derail Nigeria’s democracy, Davidson Iriekpen writes 

A day after Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to de-register the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Accord Party, Action Peoples Party (APP), Action Alliance (AA) and Zenith Labour Party (ZLP), the Court of Appeal suspended the execution of the judgment.

The appellate court, which did not mince words in conveying its dissatisfaction with the judge, described his decision as the highest form of judicial impertinence, stating that he brazenly disregarded its earlier order. The panel of justices held that Justice Lifu exhibited judicial rascality by going ahead to hear and make the order despite its order, and the pendency of the matter before the court.

The court ordered a stay of the execution of the judgment, and held that Justice Lifu’s action amounted to an affront to the hierarchy of courts.

The appellate court said the lower court’s action was “the highest 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 it amounts to judicial rascality.”

To the embarrassment of the judiciary, Justice Lifu had ordered INEC to deregister five political parties – ADC, APP, AA, AP and ZLP. According to him, the five political parties failed to meet the constitutional requirements to warrant their continued existence and participation in future elections.

The judgment stemmed from a suit filed by the Incorporated Trustees of the National Forum of Former Legislators (NFFL), which asked the court to determine whether INEC has a constitutional duty to deregister political parties that fail to meet the electoral performance thresholds stipulated in Section 225A of the 1999.

According to the group, the political parties persistently failed to meet the constitutional benchmarks required to retain their registration, such as 25 per cent of votes required in a state during a presidential election or securing at least one elective seat at the national, state, or local government level.

But the respondents, through their lawyers, challenged the jurisdiction of the court on the grounds that the plaintiff lacked the necessary locus standi to initiate the suit in the first place.

After listening to all the parties in the suit, Justice Lifu who had earlier, on May 22, fixed June 5 for judgment, was unavailable. The judgment was later adjourned to a date communicated to the parties.

Barely a few minutes to the delivery of the judgment on June 16, without prior notification, counsel to the parties were served a notice, indicating that the judge had agreed to deliver the judgment.

Pronto, the judge in his judgment ruled that INEC ought to deregister the affected parties for breaching Section 225 of the 1999 Constitution.

He consequently made an order directing the commission to forthwith, deregister the five political parties, adding that they should not be fielded in subsequent elections.

The ruling immediately raised concerns with analysts asking if the judge was not aware that the Court of Appeal ordered him to stay further proceedings on the matter pending the hearing and determination of an appeal filed by the Accord Party.

Was the judge doing the bidding of anyone?

The first suspicion arose when the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr. Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), threw his weight behind the suit and filed a notice before the court, insisting that he had a duty to support actions aimed at enforcing constitutional provisions.

To many observers, what made the judgment particularly perplexing was the apparent disregard of the uncontested facts contained in the record before the court itself.  They argued that the ADC demonstrably satisfied the constitutional thresholds prescribed under Section 225A of the Constitution.

For instance, in the 2023 general election, the party secured two seats in the House of Representatives, including the election of Hon. Leke Abejide, and also won six seats in various State Houses of Assembly across the federation, including the election of Hon. Cephas Dyako representing Konshisha State Constituency in Benue State. So were other parties.

Besides, between March and April this year, nine senators and six members of the House of Representatives defected to the ADC.

They were expressly acknowledged and corroborated by INEC and the regulator of political parties in its counter-affidavit before the court. Once the electoral body constitutionally charged with maintaining electoral records confirmed that ADC and others had attained the relevant constitutional benchmarks, one is left perplexed as to what legal or evidential basis informed the conclusion that the party failed to meet the constitutional thresholds required for continued registration.

Even more depressing to many analysts is the preliminary issue of standing. The plaintiffs themselves appeared not to have possessed the requisite locus standi to maintain the action. Who is the NFFL? How does the existence of the parties affect them?

The Nigerian constitutional jurisprudence has consistently required a claimant to demonstrate a sufficient legal interest before invoking the jurisdiction of the court. Where such standing is absent, the proper judicial response is ordinarily to decline jurisdiction rather than proceed to determine substantive constitutional questions.

What is most disturbing to them about the judgment was not really the substantive error allegedly contained in the judgment, but the apparent disregard of a subsisting order of the Court of Appeal.

While the case was pending, the Court of Appeal ordered a stay of further proceedings on the matter pending the hearing and determination of an appeal filed by the Accord Party, a platform of Governor Ademola Adeleke of Osun State who is the governorship candidate of the party will contest election in August.

More importantly, judicial system is built upon  immutable hierarchy where the decisions of lower courts remain subject to the supervisory authority of superior courts. Once the Court of Appeal assumes jurisdiction over a matter, lower courts are required to hand off the case.

Available records indicate that in an appeal arising from the suit, a panel of the Court of Appeal comprising Justices Mohammed A. Danjuma, Adebunkunola A. Banjoko and Oyejoju O. Oyewumi on May 22, 2026, granted a stay of further proceedings and directed that no further action be taken pending the hearing and determination of the appeal. 

The appeal had already been scheduled for hearing on October 27, 2026. This made Justice Lifu to adjourn indefinitely.

But in a manner that smacks of pressure and under duress from above, he made a U-turn and issued a hearing notice where he delivered judgment.

Legal pundits are wondering on what constitutional or legal authority a trial court could proceed to deliver a judgment on a matter that was already the subject of a subsisting appellate order restraining further action. 

This is why they are calling on the National Judicial Council (NJC) to come down on judges who are fond of dancing to the tune of politicians to tarnish the image of the judiciary. The council needs to move against the likes of Justice Lifu who have continued to embarrass and ridicule the judiciary. Otherwise, their actions will continue to hurt the judiciary