A massive open rebuke came today for judge of the Federal High Court, Abuja, Justice Peter Odo Lifu, from the Appeal Court as it reprimanded him for “judicial rascality”, among other stern words employed.
At stake was the judge’s verdict on Monday ordering the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to immediately de-register five opposition political parties, including the African Democratic Congress (ADC) whose presidential candidate for the 2027 election, former Vice President (VP) Atiku Abubakar, one among opposition voices spiritedly seeking to unseat President Bola Tinubu, suddenly found his bid shaky.
Aside ADC, the other parties the High Court directed INEC to deregister are the Action Peoples Party (APP), Action Alliance (AA), Accord Party (AP), and Zenith Labour Party (ZLP).
On Tuesday (today), the Court of Appeal in Abuja ordered the stay of execution of the judgment of the Federal High Court.
The appellate court also ordered the much-criticized judgment not to be executed.
In a unanimous decision, a three-member panel of the appellate court led by Justice Abubakar Mohammed, accused Justice Lifu of flouting an order it made on 22 May, which had directed him to suspend proceedings on the registration matter before him.
The appellate court held that Justice Lifu’s action amounted to an affront, judicial rascally on the hierarchy of courts.
It held that the lower judge’s action was “the highest form of judicial impertinence,” stressing that the Supreme Court previously held that a judge who acted in such manner “is unfit for the bench as it amounts to judicial rascality.”
The Appeal Court did not stop there.
It added: “Courts are enjoined to protect their integrity. This Court has supervisory authority over the trial court. The decision of the lower court to proceed with the judgment despite the express order of this court is a brazen violation of the hierarchy of the court and the 1999 Constitution.
“This court has the duty to invoke its powers in ensuring that its orders are made.
“The application for a stay of execution is hereby granted. The enforcement of the judgment is stayed.”
The Appeal Court fixed 25 June for the definite hearing of the substantive appeal.
Delivering his judgment on Monday, Justice Lifu had held that the five political parties failed to meet the constitutional requirements to warrant their continued existence and participation in future elections.
It barred INEC from further according recognition to the parties, accepting nominations of candidates from the affected parties, or giving effect to their activities for the purpose of participating in the 2027 general elections.
Justice Lifu ordered the defendants to stop parading themselves as registered political parties in the country, holding that there was merit in a suit filed against them by the National Forum of Former Legislators (NFFL).
The group, in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2637/2026, had prayed 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.
The plaintiff submitted that the five political parties listed as defendants had persistently failed to meet the constitutional benchmarks required to retain their registration.
The former legislators stressed that the requirements include winning at least 25 per cent of votes in a state during a presidential election or securing at least one elective seat at the national, state, or local government level.
They told the court that the ADC and the four other parties performed poorly in both the 2023 general elections and by-elections conducted by INEC, thereby failing to win seats across key tiers of government.
The litigants insisted that the continued existence of the ADC and the other defendants as recognised political parties is unlawful and undermines the integrity of the country’s electoral system.
