ADC, others win reprieve as Court stays deregistration order

The Court of Appeal in Abuja has ordered an immediate stay of execution of a Federal High Court judgment that directed the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister five political parties, including the African Democratic Congress (ADC), in a ruling that also delivered a scathing rebuke of the trial judge for allegedly defying a subsisting appellate court order.

In a unanimous decision delivered on Tuesday, a three-member panel of the appellate court led by Justice A. B. Mohammed suspended the enforcement of the judgment pending the determination of appeals filed by the affected political parties.

The ruling effectively preserves the legal status of the ADC, Action Peoples Party (APP), Action Alliance (AA), Accord Party, and Zenith Labour Party (ZLP), allowing them to remain registered political parties and continue participating in Nigeria’s electoral process until the substantive appeals are decided.

Beyond granting the stay of execution, the Court of Appeal sharply criticized Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court, Abuja, for proceeding to deliver the controversial judgment despite an earlier order from the appellate court directing him to suspend proceedings.

According to the appellate panel, Justice Lifu’s decision amounted to a direct challenge to the authority of a superior court and undermined the constitutional hierarchy of Nigeria’s judicial system.

“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 panel held.

The court described the conduct as one of the most serious forms of judicial misconduct, citing established Supreme Court precedents on the obligation of lower courts to comply with the directives of superior courts.

In particularly strong language, the justices declared that the trial court’s action represented “the highest form of judicial impertinence.”

READ ALSO: ADC rejects deregistration order, vows legal battle to remain on 2027 ballot

The panel further referenced a Supreme Court position that a judicial officer who deliberately acts in defiance of a superior court’s order could be regarded as “unfit for the bench,” noting that such conduct amounts to what the apex court previously characterized as “judicial rascality.”

The Court of Appeal emphasized that it possesses constitutional authority to supervise lower courts and ensure strict compliance with its directives.

According to the panel, preserving judicial discipline and maintaining respect for the hierarchy of courts are essential to safeguarding the integrity of the justice system.

“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 application for stay of execution is hereby granted. The enforcement of the judgment is stayed,” the court ruled.

During proceedings, counsel representing INEC informed the court that the electoral commission was surprised by the delivery of the Federal High Court judgment and had not received any formal notice regarding the date it would be handed down.

INEC’s lead counsel, Haliru Mohammed, disclosed that the commission only became aware of the judgment through media reports.

According to him, the commission had been aware of the Court of Appeal’s May 22 directive restraining the lower court from delivering the judgment, which had initially been reserved 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 told the court.

He added that INEC did not oppose the application seeking a stay of execution and aligned itself with the notice of appeal filed by the affected political parties.

Counsel to the ADC, Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Shuaibu Aruwa, told the appellate court that notification of the judgment’s delivery was communicated to his client through WhatsApp.

The revelation reportedly drew noticeable reactions from members of the appellate panel.

Aruwa argued that the conduct of the trial court risked creating confusion within the judicial system and threatened respect for the rule of law.

Describing the situation as an “invitation to anarchy,” the senior lawyer urged the Court of Appeal to invoke its disciplinary powers under Section 6 of the Constitution to sanction the trial judge.

“The action of the trial judge calls for swift and extraordinary measures from this court. We have come to the stage where this court should press the reset button,” Aruwa submitted.

He further urged the appellate court to act decisively to protect the integrity of the judiciary and immediately suspend the judgment.

Lawyers representing the other affected political parties also warned the court of the potential consequences of allowing the deregistration order to remain in force.

They drew attention to scheduled by-elections fixed for June 20 across six states, arguing that implementation of the judgment could trigger significant electoral, legal, and constitutional complications.

According to the parties, deregistration at such a critical period could disenfranchise candidates and supporters, disrupt electoral preparations, and generate uncertainty within Nigeria’s political landscape.

The controversy arose after the Federal High Court in Abuja ruled that the ADC and four other political parties no longer satisfied constitutional requirements necessary for continued registration and participation in elections.

Justice Lifu subsequently ordered INEC to deregister the ADC, APP, AA, Accord Party, and ZLP.

The affected parties immediately challenged the ruling, arguing that the judgment was delivered in violation of an existing Court of Appeal order restraining the lower court from proceeding.

With Tuesday’s ruling by the Court of Appeal, the enforcement of the deregistration order has been suspended, ensuring that all five parties retain their legal status and electoral rights pending the final determination of their appeals.

The decision is expected to have significant implications for Nigeria’s political landscape, particularly ahead of forthcoming electoral activities, while also reigniting debate about judicial discipline, adherence to court hierarchy, and the limits of judicial authority within the country’s legal system.