The Court of Appeal in Abuja has ordered a stay of execution of the judgment directing the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister the African Democratic Congress (ADC) and four other political parties.
In a strongly worded ruling delivered on Tuesday, the appellate court also criticised the conduct of the trial judge who delivered the earlier judgment, describing his actions as a serious violation of judicial procedure and constitutional order.
The decision provides temporary relief for the affected parties, allowing them to retain their registration status and continue participating in Nigeria’s electoral process pending the determination of their appeals.
The three-member panel of the Court of Appeal, led by Justice A. B. Mohammed, unanimously held that Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja acted improperly by proceeding to deliver the judgment despite an earlier directive from the appellate court ordering him to suspend further proceedings.
According to the panel, the lower court’s action amounted to a direct challenge to the hierarchy of the courts established by the Constitution.
“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,” the appellate court held.
The judges did not stop there.
Invoking an earlier Supreme Court decision, the Court of Appeal described Justice Lifu’s conduct in some of the harshest language used by superior courts against lower court judges.
“The decision of the lower court to proceed with the judgment despite the express order of this court is the highest form of judicial impertinence,” the panel stated.
It further recalled the position of the Supreme Court that a judicial officer who behaves in such a manner “is unfit for the bench as it amounts to judicial rascality.”
The panel said it had a constitutional responsibility to safeguard the integrity of the judicial system and ensure that lower courts comply with the lawful directives of superior courts.
“Courts are enjoined to protect their integrity. This court has supervisory authority over the trial court. This court has the duty to invoke its powers in ensuring that its orders are obeyed,” the judges ruled.
“The application for stay of execution is hereby granted. The enforcement of the judgment is stayed.”
The controversy began after the Federal High Court ordered INEC to deregister five political parties, namely the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Action Peoples Party (APP), Action Alliance (AA), Accord Party and Zenith Labour Party (ZLP).
Justice Lifu had held that the parties failed to satisfy constitutional requirements necessary for their continued existence and participation in future elections.
The judgment immediately generated concerns among political stakeholders, especially because of its potential impact on Nigeria’s multi-party democracy.
However, during Tuesday’s proceedings, INEC itself distanced the commission from the execution of the judgment and disclosed that it had not been officially informed about the delivery of the lower court’s ruling.
INEC’s lead counsel, Mr Haliru Mohammed, told the appellate panel that the commission only became aware of the judgment through media reports.
According to him, the commission had been fully aware of the Court of Appeal’s earlier order made on May 22, restraining the Federal High Court from proceeding with the case until the appeal was determined.
The lower court had initially reserved judgment for June 5.
“We were not aware of any notice from the court regarding the delivery of the judgment. We only saw it as breaking news in the media,” Mohammed said.
“We therefore do not oppose the application of the appellant to stay the execution of the judgment.”
INEC also aligned itself with the notices of appeal filed by the affected political parties.
Counsel to the ADC, Mr Shuaibu Aruwa (SAN), made another revelation that appeared to surprise members of the appellate panel.
He told the court that Justice Lifu communicated the date for the judgment to the party through WhatsApp.
The disclosure reportedly drew visible reactions from the judges.
Aruwa described the actions of the trial judge as an invitation to anarchy and urged the Court of Appeal to take extraordinary steps to protect the integrity of the judiciary.
“The action of the trial judge calls for swift and extraordinary measures from this court,” he submitted.
“We have come to the stage where this court should press the reset button.”
He further urged the appellate court to invoke its powers under Section 6 of the 1999 Constitution to sanction the judge.
“We urge this court to take disciplinary steps by immediately suspending that judgment. This court has the power to protect its own integrity. We pray this court suspends the judgment immediately without further delay,” he added.
Other affected political parties also expressed concern about the implications of the lower court’s decision, especially with by-elections scheduled to hold on June 20 across six states.
They warned that allowing the deregistration order to remain in force could trigger widespread electoral confusion and constitutional disputes.
According to them, candidates sponsored by the affected parties could be excluded from the elections, thereby undermining the democratic rights of both political parties and voters.
Nigeria operates a multi-party system, with political parties serving as the foundation of electoral participation and democratic representation.
Although the Constitution empowers INEC to regulate political parties, the issue of deregistration has remained a contentious one over the years.
In 2020, INEC deregistered several political parties after citing constitutional provisions and poor electoral performance. Some of the affected parties challenged the decision in court.
For now, the Court of Appeal’s decision means that the ADC, APP, AA, Accord Party and ZLP remain legally recognised political parties.
They can continue their activities and participate in electoral processes pending the final determination of the appeals before the court.