The Court of Appeal, Abuja, has adjourned to 14 July the hearing of appeals by the ADC, Accord Party and three other parties against a Federal High Court judgment ordering their deregistration — a judgment the appellate court had already stayed after accusing the trial judge of defying its order.
The Court of Appeal, Abuja, on Tuesday adjourned to 14 July the hearing of appeals filed by the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Accord Party, Action Alliance, Zenith Labour Party and Action Peoples Party against a Federal High Court judgment that ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister them.
The adjournment followed a request from some of the parties, who told the three-member panel — led by Justice Abubakar Mohammed — that they had filed and served court processes but had not yet filed and served their response briefs. The panel granted a short adjournment to allow the parties to regularise their filings.
The underlying judgment, delivered by Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court, Abuja, held that the five parties had failed to meet the electoral performance thresholds in Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) — winning at least 25 per cent of the votes cast in a state in a presidential election, or securing an elective seat at any level. The judgment barred INEC from recognising the parties or accepting candidates from them for the 2027 general elections, and directed them to stop describing themselves as registered political parties. Justice Lifu delivered the judgment in a suit (FHC/ABJ/CS/2637/2026) brought by the National Forum of Former Legislators (NFFL), a position the Attorney-General of the Federation, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, supported in the proceedings.
The Court of Appeal had, on 16 June, ordered a stay of execution of Justice Lifu's judgment, saying he delivered it despite an earlier order from the appellate court, made on 22 May, directing him to stay proceedings pending an interlocutory appeal. The appellate court described the judge's conduct as amounting to "judicial impunity and rascality" and a violation of "judicial precedent and the Constitution." Justice Lifu has not publicly responded to the Court of Appeal's characterisation of his conduct; judges typically do not comment on matters that remain before the courts.
