By Michael Lim, Abuja

An Abuja three-member appeal panel led by Justice A. B. Mohammed, in a unanimous decision, ordered for stay of execution of the decision of Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja directing the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, to deregister the African Democratic Congress, Action Peoples Party, Action Alliance, Accord Party and Zenith Labour Party.

The panel on Tuesday faulted Justice Lifu for flouting a May 22 order that directed him to suspend proceedings before him, describing his conduct as the gravest form of judicial misconduct. It declared:

“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 decision of the lower court to proceed with the judgment despite the express order of this court is the highest form of judicial impertinence,” adding 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.”

The panel said it had a duty to assert its supervisory authority over lower courts and protect the integrity of the judicial hierarchy.

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

Earlier in its submission, INEC told the court that it was stunned by Justice Lifu’s decision to deliver the judgment, disclosing that the commission only learned of the ruling through media reports rather than any official notification.

INEC’s lead counsel, Mr Haliru Mohammed, told the panel that the commission had been aware of the appellate court’s May 22 order restraining the lower court from delivering the judgment, which had originally 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. We therefore do not oppose the application of the appellant to stay the execution of the judgment,” Mohammed submitted.

The commission therefore aligned itself with the notice of appeal filed by the affected political parties.

Counsel for the ADC, Mr Shuaibu Aruwa, SAN, told the court that Justice Lifu communicated the judgment’s delivery to the party via WhatsApp, a disclosure that drew visible reactions from the bench.

Aruwa described the lower court’s conduct as an invitation to anarchy and urged the appellate court to invoke its disciplinary jurisdiction under Section 6 of the 1999 Constitution to sanction the 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.

“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.”

The other affected parties similarly drew the panel’s attention to the June 20 by-elections scheduled across six states, warning that allowing the judgment to stand would trigger serious electoral and constitutional crises nationwide.

With Tuesday’s appellate court order, the five parties remain registered pending the determination of their appeals

By Isa Abdul

The African Democratic Party, ADC, has criticized the decision of Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday ordering INEC to deregister the ADC, Accord Party, Action Peoples Party, Action Alliance and Zenith Labour Party for allegedly failing to satisfy constitutional and electoral requirements outlined in Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and the Electoral Act 2022 as part of evolving “Civilian dictatorship” in Nigeria.

According to the ADC, the decision runs contrary to established legal precedents and even conflicts with positions previously advanced by INEC on the issue of political party deregistration.

That’s why the party has strongly opposed the Court’s ruling, describing the judgment as an attempt to use the judiciary to undermine Nigeria’s democratic process.

The judgment which came from a suit instituted by the National Forum of Former Legislators, sought a declaration that INEC was obligated to remove political parties that failed to meet prescribed electoral performance benchmarks. These include securing at least 25 per cent of votes in any state during a presidential election or winning at least one elective position.

In a statement posted on X and signed by its National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, the party condemned the ruling as unconstitutional and deeply troubling. He said:

“The African Democratic Congress (ADC) wishes to warn, in the strongest possible terms, against any attempt to use the judiciary as an instrument to undermine democracy and plunge Nigeria into a major political crisis.

“We are deeply alarmed by the judgment reportedly delivered by Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court, Abuja, in a case filed by the so-called National Forum of Former Legislators seeking the de-registration of the ADC and four other political parties. This judgment stands in direct conflict with constitutional principles and all known judicial processes and procedures.”

The party quoted INEC as insisting that political parties could only be deregistered on grounds recognised by law, stressing that such decisions must not be influenced by political interests, public sentiment or pressure from vested groups.

Beyond challenging the substance of the judgment, the ADC also questioned the procedure that led to the ruling. It alleged that the Federal High Court proceeded with the matter despite an existing order of the Court of Appeal issued on May 22, 2026, directing that proceedings be stayed.

“We are therefore left in no doubt that this latest development is a continuation of the ruling party’s persistent efforts to undermine the opposition, especially the ADC.”

The party added:
“Any attempt to eliminate the country’s major opposition party through judicial manoeuvring… is a direct invitation to anarchy,” describing the ruling as “reckless, provocative, and even incendiary.”

It added that the case had grown beyond a dispute over party registration and now touched on a broader national question — whether Nigerians would be presented with genuine political alternatives in the 2027 elections, warning:

“Let it be clearly stated: the ADC will not stand by while the democratic rights of millions of Nigerians are threatened. We reject any and all attempts to intimidate, suppress, deregister, or politically extinguish our party and other opposition parties through means that offend both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution.”

Reaffirming its confidence in the rule of law, the party said it would challenge the judgment through all available legal and constitutional avenues. It also pledged to engage democratic stakeholders across the country while continuing to protect the interests of its candidates, members and supporters.

“Make no mistake, this is another act of desperation by the ruling party and the government to hand President Tinubu a second term without contest. This will not work,” ADC alleged.

The party warned that any attempt to create what it described as a “civilian dictatorship” could have far-reaching implications for national stability. It continued that those responsible should be held accountable for any tensions arising from such action. The party also signalled plans to petition the National Judicial Council, accusing the trial judge of misconduct and conduct capable of bringing the judiciary into disrepute.

The party however called its members, supporters and coalition partners to remain peaceful, to stay alert and committed to the democratic process, assuring that:

“Whatever it takes, the ADC will be on the ballot so long as the 2027 election is to hold.”

By Our Reporter

Following failure of the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, to recognize its interim National Working Committee (NWC), the Senator Adolphus Wa­bara-led Board of Trustees (BoT) of the Peoples Demo­cratic Party (PDP) has insti­tuted a suit against the Inde­pendent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

In the suit, BoT and the PDP seek an order compelling the INEC to, forth­with, update its records and publish on its official website the NWC of the party as for­warded to it by the plaintiffs and its National Executive Committee (NEC).

According to the suit, the names of members of the Tanimu Turaki-led NWC were forward­ed to the electoral umpire via their letters dated May 4, but INEC has failed to accord them recognition as deserved.

Marked: FHC/ABJ/ CS/1159/2026, the originating summons was filed on June 4 by a team of lawyers led by Chief Chris Uche (SAN).

According to the legal document, listed as plaintiffs are former Senate President Wa­bara; BoT Secretary, Niger State former governor, Baban­gida Aliyu; ex-Minister of In­formation, Prof. Jerry Gana and PDP chieftain, Olabode George, as 1st to 4th plaintiffs.

Others plaintiffs are 5th to 8th, former minister of women affairs, Hajiya Maryam Ciroma; ex-minister of women af­fairs and social development, Hajiya Zainab Maina; mem­ber of BoT and NEC, Dame Esther Uduehi and PDP respectively, who sued INEC as sole defendant in the suit.

The Court of Appeal sit­ting in Abuja on June 3, set aside key aspects of an Ibadan Division of the Federal High Court judgment that rec­ognised a factional caretaker committee in the PDP.

The appellate court held that the trial court granted reliefs that were never sought by any of the parties to the suit.

Justice Uchechukwu On­yemenam, in a unanimous judgement, faulted Justice Uche Agomoh of the Federal High Court, Ibadan Division, for going beyond the issues placed before the court in a dispute arising from the PDP leadership crisis.

Justice Agomoh in a judg­ment delivered on January 30, recognised the caretaker committee led by Abdurah­man Mohammed and Samuel Anyanwu of Nyesom Wike’s camp, as the legitimate leader­ship faction of the party.

However, the Court of Ap­peal held that none of the par­ties before the lower court had sought such a declaration.

Meanwhile, the Waba­ra-led BoT of the PDP, in the suit filed on June 4, sought a declaration that INEC is con­stitutionally bound to enforce and give full effect to the de­cision of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, in a suit num­ber: CV/1050/2025 between Senator Samuel Anyanwu vs. Amb. Umar Damagun and eight others delivered on Jan. 12.

They sought a declaration that the commission is also bound by decisions in appeal number: CA/ABI/1613/2025, between PDP and two others Vs. Hon. Austine Nwachuk­wu and eight others deliv­ered on March 9 and appeal numbers: SC/CV/164/2026 between PDP Vs. Alhaji Sule Lamido and four others and SC/CV/166/2026 between PDP and two others Vs. Hon Austine Nwachukwu and eight others both delivered on April 30.

They, therefore, prayed the court for an order directing INEC to accept and give effect to all official correspondenc­es, communications, notices and engagements concerning the party from the interim NWC and for the commission to direct the same emanating from it to the NWC as for­warded to it by the plaintiffs and the NEC via their letters dated May 4.

In the affidavit in support of the originating summons deposed to by ex-governor Aliyu, he said on November 1, 2025, “key officers of PDP (8th plaintiff) like Sen. Any­anwu, Hon. Umar M. Bature, Adeyemi Kamaldeen Ajibade and Okechukwu Osuoha were suspended by a resolution of the NWC for gross miscon­duct, anti-party activities and insubordination against the 8th plaintiff.”

Aliyu said that at the 608 meeting of the NWC held on November 1, 2025, their sus­pension was approved and they were referred to Nation­al Disciplinary Committee (NDC) for further action.

He said the affected four members deliberately re­fused, failed and neglected to submit themselves to the par­ty’s NDC and continue to act as officers of the party even when there was no any resolu­tion lifting their suspension.

He said that Anyanwu was earlier recommended for expulsion as a member of the PDP by a report dated March 10, 2025 submitted by the NDC.

Aliyu said, subsequently, the NDC’s recommendation for the expulsion of Anyanwu was upheld at the 608 meeting of the NWC held on Novem­ber 1, 2025.

He said upon his expul­sion, Anyanwu filed suit num­ber: CV/1050/2025 against Damagun and others at the FCT High Court, challenging his expulsion as a member of the party.

He averred that on Janu­ary 12, the FCT High Court delivered its judgment, dis­missing Anyanwu’s claim in the said suit on the merit.

The ex-governor said the BoT, at its emergency meet­ing held on November 5, 2025, constituted the board of rec­onciliation committee, prepa­ratory to its national elective convention.

He said the party held its elective national convention on November 15 and 16, 2025 and elected its national offi­cers.

According to him, the con­vention was subject of several litigation that went through the Federal High Court to the Supreme Court.

Aliyu said the convention was nullified by the Court of Appeal in appeal number: CA/A8)/1613/2025, between PDP and two others Vs. Hon Austine Nwachukwu and eight others delivered on March 9.

He said the judgment of the appellate court referred to also affirmed the suspension of the key officers of the PDP referred to in paragraph 11 by virtue of the resolution of the party’s NWC.

He said on further ap­peal to the Supreme Court, the apex court, in its judg­ment in appeal numbers: SC/CV/164/2026, between PDP Vs. Alhaji Sule Lami­do and four others and SC/ CV/166/2026, between PDP and two others Vs. Hon Aus­tine Nwachukwu and eight others, both delivered on April 30 also affirmed the Appeal Court judgment, nul­lifying the convention of the PDP held on November 15 and 16, 2025.

In addition, he said the apex court judgment further dismissed the cross appeal, challenging the suspension of the key officers of the par­ty mentioned in paragraph 11 supra.

Aliyu said the resolution of the NWC dated Novem­ber 1, 2025, upon which the suspension of A. K. Ajibade, SAN, was affirmed by the Court of Appeal and cross appeal against the same to the Supreme Court was dismissed, suspended A. K. Ajibade, SAN, alongside Any­anwu, Bature and Osuoha.

He stated, “Consequent upon the vacuum created in the leadership structure of the PDP following the judg­ment nullifying the Novem­ber 15 and Nov. 16, 2025 elec­tive national convention of the 8th plaintiff and which also upheld the suspension of the affected key officers of the 8th plaintiff, the BoT, comprising the 1st to 7th plaintiffs constituted an inter­im NWC mandated to oversee the affairs of the 8th plaintiff pending the conduct of a valid national convention.”

He said the constitution of the interim NWC was communicated to the INEC by the party’s BoT and NEC through their letters dated Monday, May 4, respectively.

The former governor said, consequently, the NWC, at its meeting held on May 12, as­signed portfolios to members of the interim NWC as con­stituted by its BoT and NEC, as was forwarded to the com­mission vide Exhibits “9” and “10”, respectively.

He said the electoral um­pire was subsequently no­tified of the assignment of the portfolios by the interim NWC’s letter dated May 15.

Aliyu, however, said that in spite of the receipt of Exhib­its “9” and “10” dated May 4 and Exhibit “11” dated May 15, written to INEC by the BoT, NEC and NWC, the de­fendant failed, refused and neglected to effect the neces­sary corrections in its records or accord recognition to the interim National Working Committee.”

He said upon the non-com­pliance with the letters, fur­ther letters were written through the party’s lawyer, Chief Uche, on May 8 and May 13, urging the INEC to give effect to subsisting judg­ment of the courts.

The ex-governor said he knew for a fact that INEC is under a constitutional and legal obligation to comply with valid and subsisting judgments of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.

He described INEC’s ac­tions as “a grave affront to the rule of law and the suprema­cy of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).”

According to him, unless this honourable court inter­venes, the defendant will con­tinue to disregard the valid and subsisting judgments of the courts.

Aliyu said it was in the in­terest of justice for the court to grant the reliefs sought in the originating summons.

The suit was yet to be as­signed as at the time of filing this re­port