The anticipated judgment in a suit seeking the deregistration of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Accord Party and three other political parties was on Friday stalled following the absence of Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja.
Justice Lifu had earlier fixed June 5, 2026, for judgment in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2637/2026, filed by the Incorporated Trustees of the National Forum of Former Legislators against the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and several political parties.
The defendants in the suit include the ADC, Action Alliance (AA), Action Peoples Party (APP), Accord Party and Zenith Labour Party (ZLP).
However, after lawyers and litigants waited for about two hours at the court on Friday, a court official announced that the judge would not be sitting because he was out of Abuja.
According to the official, a new date for the delivery of judgment would be communicated to all parties when fixed by the court.
The suit seeks the deregistration of the affected political parties over alleged constitutional breaches relating to electoral performance and spread.
Justice Lifu had fixed the judgment date on May 20 after dismissing applications for stay of proceedings and joinder filed by some politicians and party members seeking to be included in the case.
Among those affected by the ruling were Ademola Adeleke, Oluwafemi Abayomi Arabambi of the Accord Party and Sani Yakubu Noma of the ADC.
In his earlier ruling, the judge held that granting a stay of proceedings at that stage would impose hardship on litigants, particularly as political parties were expected to submit names of candidates ahead of forthcoming elections.
Justice Lifu noted that the Supreme Court had consistently cautioned lower courts against granting unnecessary stays of proceedings and maintained that the trial court should be allowed to conclude the matter unless directed otherwise by the Court of Appeal.
“It is my considered view not to grant the stay except otherwise decided by the upper court,” the judge had ruled while dismissing the applications.
The court also rejected requests for joinder by several individuals, holding that the political parties they sought to represent were already parties to the suit, making their inclusion unnecessary.
At a previous hearing, counsel to the Action Peoples Party, Peter Abang, had urged the court to dismiss the suit on the grounds that issues raised therein had already been considered by the appellate court.
Justice Lifu, however, stated that the court would consider the Court of Appeal’s position alongside all arguments presented before delivering judgment.
During the adoption of final written addresses, counsel to the plaintiff, Yakubu Abdullahi Ruba, SAN, argued that the affected political parties failed to meet constitutional requirements regarding electoral spread and performance.
Relying on previous Supreme Court decisions, Ruba contended that political parties were expected to secure at least 25 per cent of votes in prescribed elections to maintain relevance under the law.
He urged the court to order the deregistration of the parties, insisting that the defendants had failed to effectively challenge the arguments presented by the plaintiff.
Representing the Attorney General of the Federation, Abdullahi Abdulrahman told the court that the Attorney General possessed constitutional authority to support actions aimed at ensuring compliance with constitutional provisions.
He urged the court to determine whether the parties listed as the third to seventh defendants had violated relevant sections of the Constitution.
Counsel representing the affected political parties, including Musibau Adetunbi, SAN, for Accord Party and Shuaib Enejo Aruwa, SAN, for ADC, had earlier urged the court to suspend proceedings pending the determination of appeals before the Court of Appeal.
They argued that continuing with the matter while interlocutory appeals remained unresolved could prejudice issues already before the appellate court.
The plaintiff opposed the request, maintaining that neither the Court of Appeal nor the Supreme Court had issued any order restraining the Federal High Court from proceeding with the case.
INEC’s counsel, Haliru Mohammed, also informed the court that the electoral commission had filed a counter-affidavit in response to the substantive suit.
With Friday’s proceedings unable to go ahead, parties now await a fresh date for the delivery of judgment in the closely watched case that could have significant implications for the affected political parties.
About The Author
