As Nigeria moves closer to the 2027 general elections, it is important to remind all the actors involved in this process to act in a responsible manner and not engage in any untidy or sharp practice that may raise doubts or anxiety about the integrity of the elections. An impression that our democracy is under assault in any form whatsoever is enough to derail the exercise and create a perception of wrong-doing or deliberate mischief. In particular, two recent developments relating to the judiciary – the Justice Peter Lifu case in the matter of the proposed deregistration of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Accord Party (AP) and 3 other political parties; and then the decision of the Federal High Court, Lokoja sitting as an appeal court over its 10 December, 2025 decision on the registration of the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC). Both are unfortunate, especially as the judiciary is considered a temple of justice whose officers are expected to be above suspicion like Caesar’s wife. The judex have a bounden duty to cloak their judgements with the clean garment of fairness, impartiality and justice, no matter whose ox is gored. They are not to descend into the arena. But it is now more fashionable than ever for litigants and observers alike to impugn the integrity of our courts. They claim to know our judges. The pervasive perception is that a Nigerian judge can be bribed, and the judiciary which is supposed to be an independent arm of government has now been joined at the hips with the machinations of the Executive, the ruling party, or the highest bidder. The injury is self-inflicted. The rule of law is threatened in the eyes of the ordinary man on the street.
- +Political parties, the courts and the path to 2027, By Reuben Abati
In the Justice Peter Lifu case, it is argued that the learnt Judge of the High Court simply overruled an earlier decision of the Court of Appeal, delivered on 22 May to the effect that the suit – Incorporated Trustees of NFFL vs.
In the Justice Peter Lifu case, it is argued that the learnt Judge of the High Court simply overruled an earlier decision of the Court of Appeal, delivered on 22 May to the effect that the suit – Incorporated Trustees of NFFL vs. INEC & Ors (FHC/ABJ/CS/2637/2027) which was filed by the National Forum of Former Legislators at the Federal High Court, Abuja requesting the deregistration of five political parties, for failing to meet necessary performance thresholds to be registered, should be put on hold. Justice Lifu’s court ignored the Court of Appeal and went ahead to deliver judgment, directing INEC to deregister the political parties. It was a very angry Court of Appeal taking up the matter subsequently that accused Justice Lifu of brazenly violating “the hierarchy of courts”, thus committing “the gravest form of judicial misconduct”, in fact “judicial rascality.” The Appeal Court has now adjourned until 7 July, for the hearing of the appeal and to enable parties in the suit to file and exchange their briefs of argument.
It would be difficult to argue that Justice Peter Lifu acted, without being aware of the previous decision of the Court of Appeal. There is also the matter of whether or not the former legislators had a locus standi in the matter. It would appear that the Nigerian Supreme Court prefers a more liberal approach to a strict approach on the subject of locus standi particularly where public interest is involved in pursuit of the protection of public rights (Centre for Oil Pollution Watch v. NNPC, Fawehinmi v. Akilu) or where the issues raised concern the interpretation of the Constitution (Attorney General of the Federation v. Abubakar, Inakoju v. Adeleke; AG Ondo State v. AG Federation). However, some lawyers may well prefer a restrictive approach which will require the litigant to demonstrate the specific injury or damage that he or she may have suffered, and the arguments on this and allied issues were canvassed in court. Justice Lifu’s decision rested largely on his reading of Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution, which gives INEC the authority to register or deregister political parties, with a view to “sanitizing the political space.” But was there any prior scrutiny by INEC, due diligence and investigation by INEC to ascertain the claims against the five political parties or was it merely enough to consider the claims by third-party litigants?
Curiously, the learned judge seemed to have anticipated the response he received subsequently from the Court of Appeal when in his conclusions, he wrote inter alia that:
“If any party wants to suspend the operation of an order fixing a case for judgment, they must seek specific order staying the effect of those orders. Fixing a case for judgment is an order of Court. That order is still extant. In my considered view, this is the implication of the Court’s decision in the case of Zenith Bank Plc vs. John (2015)…Moreover and more importantly, the National Judicial Council by a circular …dated 16th June, 2025 directed as follows:-
Henceforth, matters that have reached an advanced stage or have been adjourned for judgment should not be transferred, irrespective of complaint by any of the parties”
“The implication of the above directive is very discerning to a legal mind. Judgment of a Court should not be delayed or stayed or suspended. The judex is a man under authority. He complies implicitly with superior directives particularly as a public servant and judicial officer in line with his oath of office. In the absence of any specific order putting on hold the judgment of the Court coupled with the fact that there is no inferred abuse of Court process and counsel has adopted all their processes while the Court has statutory time to deliver its Judgment, I hold that there is no legal impediment to the delivery of the Judgment of this Court.”
