For the benefit of those who have not quite followed the story of Justice Peter Odo Lifu, this article begins by restating the highlights of the relevant events. In June 2026, the said Justice Lifu of the Federal High Court, Abuja ordered INEC to deregister five political parties namely: Africa Democratic Congress, Action Peoples Party, Accord Party, Action Alliance, and Zenith Labour Party. Unfortunately, the Court of Appeal had ordered a stay of proceedings on the matter about a month earlier, but Lifu ignored the order and went ahead to deliver judgment. On appeal, the Court of Appeal found a huge space to take the high court judge to the cleaners. It did not only set aside Lifu’s judgment, it used the harshest rebuke in recent times on the judge.
In the words of the judges of the Court of Appeal, Lifu’s conduct was ‘the highest form of judicial impertinence’, ‘judicial rascality’, ‘judicial indiscipline and gross insubordination’ and ‘a brazen violation of the hierarchy of the court and the 1999 Constitution.’ As if to establish that it was not doing anything new, the court recalled the Supreme Court’s precedent where the apex court had held that a judge who deliberately disregards the order of a superior court is ‘unfit for the bench.’ Many commentators agreed with the condemnation of Lifu because he wrongly assumed jurisdiction to act on a suit filed by a body without legal capacity. Lifu also didn’t even get the facts of the case right as he ordered the deregistration of parties which did not fail the test of registration.
At this point where everyone is up against Justice Lifu, I consider it necessary to draw attention to the fact that the anti-Lifu posture does not tell the entire story. Although I can’t clap for Lifu, I have searched in vain for what can encourage me to clap for the Court of Appeal either. Indeed, being the higher court with judges of greater professional experience, I am not persuaded that the Court of Appeal did better or was in any way right in openly castigating and publicly rebuking an erring judge. It would have been better for the entire judiciary if the Court had just overturned the verdict without abusing the person of the judge. In addition to not adding any judicial value to the reversal of the earlier verdict, the abuse only derogated from the image of the judiciary.
Instead of sending an internal report to the NJC, the Appeal Court created a problem for the entire judiciary by using strong terms on a judge thereby prompting Nigerians to expect his removal within minutes. Months after, the removal didn’t happen. Lifu is not only still there; he has since done more harm as far as many members of the public are concerned. In fact, two days after the NJC axed other erring judges, Justice Lifu delivered a second controversial judgment nullifying the ADC primary election and reinstating a factional leadership. This establishes clearly that the damaging words on Lifu were superfluous. The point to be made is that the Court of Appeal was right to set aside the Lifu judgment. It was also right to insist on hierarchy, but was wrong to communicate that insistence through personal condemnation.
Perhaps our Court of Appeal should emulate courts in other climes. In the UK for instance, the Supreme Court, in R (Miller) v. Secretary of State for Exiting the EU UKSC 5, overturned a decision of the Divisional Court on a matter of weighty constitutional importance, without a single personal adjective directed at the lower court or the judge in person. In Nigeria, the Court of Appeal which has no power to remove a judge attempted to pre-empt the National Judicial Council (NJC) that has the mandate to discipline judges. The situation now is that the said unfit Lifu is still in office; and the powerful judges of the Court of Appeal have been ignored while our sleeping NJC has continued snoring heavily leaving many people to create several theories on the NJC’s posture.
My standpoint today is supported by the fact that under the Constitution and the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers, all judges are bound by the same rules. Two of those rules which are relevant here are i) A judge must be temperate, courteous, and restrained in language, even when criticising a lower court, ii) A judge must not make unnecessary personal attacks that bring the judiciary into disrepute. In line with these rules, one can say without any fear of contradiction that a higher court that insults lower courts but refuses to police its own tone and diction stands the risk of losing moral authority. It would appear therefore that the breach of the above rules on temperate language is responsible for why the NJC is over sleeping. Otherwise, the noise that has been made about Justice Lifu is strong enough to wake up the dead.
Surprisingly, in spite of formal protests by parties and other groups which see Lifu as a tool for judicial partisanship, the latest move by the NJC in which it disciplined 9 judicial officers, had no mention of Justice Lifu. Indeed, as of November 2026, there has been no public query, no investigation report, no timeline, no statement from NJC on Lifu’s petition. One pro-NJC advocate says the body may have learnt lessons that are making her cautious. For example, if the NJC, after due process, is unable to agree with the Court of Appeal, it would be accused of shielding Lifu. If on the other hand, it removes him, it may be seen as merely rubber-stamping the Court of Appeal. In either case, the NJC loses the advocate concludes.
At the same time, there are critics in other disciplines who are sick and tired of an unduly silent NJC. To them, the current situation is that the story has shifted from judgment and politics to communication and accountability, because a disciplinary body that cannot communicate its process clearly creates suspicion. The luck the judiciary has is that many people often forget that it is an arm of government. As a result, the few media professionals in Nigeria who have the courage to hold government accountable to the people face only the executive and the legislature. Of recent however, some of our judges are inadvertently telling us all that so much is wrong with our judiciary.
If so, the media and social activists must begin to beam their searchlight to the direction of the judiciary. The other day, a respected retired justice of the Supreme Court asserted that our judiciary now operates like market stalls. Courts of coordinate jurisdiction have continued to give conflicting decisions in breach of warnings by the Chief Justice of the federation. In addition to this situation which greatly confuses our people, it has become the norm for parties to a case; to both claim to have won the case. The fact that at the end of every case in Nigeria, each counsel has the audacity to address the media and claim victory even when his side actually lost in a particular case, points clearly to poor systemic communication.
The National Judicial Council (NJC) which is established under Section 153(1)(i) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) has the mandate to exercise disciplinary control over judicial officers. As the sole constitutional gatekeeper for judicial discipline in the country, the NJC is not an advisory body. When a judge is accused of defying a superior court, there is no other institution the public can turn to. The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) can petition; civil society can protest; the media can even produce sensational reports on the subject but it is only the NJC that can discipline. It is a huge monopoly which carries with it a corresponding monopoly on communication. If the NJC does not speak, no one can speak authoritatively on its behalf. In controversial cases such as those heard by Lifu, silence cannot be golden.
Public trust in the judiciary has been patently eroded. It does not speak well of our judiciary for our leading politicians to publicly declare that they will not go to court to fight the outcome of the 2027 elections. Our judiciary must immediately evolve a better model of communication to earn public trust. In Kenya, the Judicial Service Commission publishes an annual report listing the number of petitions received, the number disposed of, and the average time for disposal. No judge is named until misconduct is established thereby assuring the public that the system works. In Ghana, the Judicial Council regularly issues short statements confirming receipt of petitions and expected timelines. The public does not know the outcome in advance, but it knows the Council is functioning. Is our NJC gagged?
The post Justice Lifu, Appeal Court and NJC, by Tonnie Iredia appeared first on Vanguard News.