The Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal has ordered a stay of execution of a Federal High Court judgment directing the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister five political parties, sharply criticising the conduct of the trial judge, Justice Peter Lifu, and describing his actions as an affront to the judicial hierarchy.
In a unanimous decision delivered by a three-member panel led by Justice A.B. Mohammed, the appellate court held that Justice Lifu acted improperly by proceeding to deliver judgment despite an earlier order of the Court of Appeal directing him to suspend proceedings in the matter pending the determination of an appeal.
The court described the judge’s action as a “brazen violation” of the hierarchy of courts and the provisions of the 1999 Constitution.
According to the appellate court, the lower court’s conduct amounted to “the highest form of judicial impertinence”, noting that the Supreme Court had previously held that a judicial officer who disregards the authority of a superior court is guilty of what it termed “judicial rascality”.
“Courts are enjoined to protect their integrity. This court has supervisory authority over the trial court. 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 court held.
“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 ruling effectively places on hold the Federal High Court judgment that ordered INEC to deregister the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Action Peoples Party (APP), Action Alliance (AA), Accord Party (AP) and Zenith Labour Party (ZLP).
Justice Lifu had earlier ruled that the parties failed to meet the constitutional threshold required for their continued existence and participation in elections. The judgment directed INEC to stop recognising the parties, barred them from presenting candidates for elections and prohibited them from operating as registered political parties.
However, the Court of Appeal noted that the judgment was delivered despite a subsisting order issued on 22 May 2026 by another three-member appellate panel led by Justice Mohammed Danjuma.
That panel had granted an application filed by the Accord Party and ordered a stay of further proceedings in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/2637/2025 pending the hearing and determination of Appeal No. CA/ABJ/CV/569/2026.
The appeal was subsequently adjourned until 27 October 2026 for hearing.
Notwithstanding the appellate court’s directive, Justice Lifu proceeded to deliver judgment, prompting the latest intervention by the Court of Appeal.
Meanwhile, the Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA) has called on the National Judicial Council (NJC) to investigate the circumstances surrounding the Federal High Court judgment.
In a statement issued by its National Coordinator, Emmanuel Onwubiko, the association described the ruling as a serious threat to constitutional democracy, judicial integrity and Nigeria’s multi-party political system.
HURIWA expressed concern that the judgment was delivered despite the existence of a subsisting appellate court order, arguing that such conduct, if established, would amount to a grave constitutional violation.
“Why the haste to deliver such a consequential judgment when the Court of Appeal is already seized of the matter and has fixed a hearing date? Why proceed in the face of a reported subsisting stay of proceedings?” the group queried.
The organisation further warned against judicial actions that could be perceived as targeting opposition parties ahead of the 2027 general elections, arguing that such developments risk undermining public confidence in democratic institutions.
According to HURIWA, the Court of Appeal has repeatedly cautioned against judicial overreach in politically sensitive matters and has emphasised that courts should not be used as instruments for determining political outcomes outside constitutional limits.
The association described the judgment as “totally fallacious in reasoning and dangerous in its implications for constitutional governance”, urging the NJC to take decisive action to prevent judicial excesses capable of weakening democracy.
“The judiciary remains the last hope of the common man and must never be reduced, whether by perception or reality, into an instrument of political engineering or partisan advantage,” HURIWA stated.
Similar concerns were expressed by stakeholders in Anambra State, who warned that the judgment could heighten political tensions ahead of the 2027 elections.
A veteran journalist and former Chairman of Ohanaeze Ndigbo in Anambra State, Chief Chris Elumunoh, described the matter as highly sensitive and called for caution in its implementation.
He argued that the judgment, which was based on the electoral performance of the affected parties, could generate confusion within the political system, particularly as preparations intensify for forthcoming elections.
“The judiciary must continue to live up to its reputation as the last hope of the common man rather than creating political tension in the country,” Elumunoh said.
He added, however, that the affected parties still retained the constitutional right to challenge the decision through the appellate process.
Legal practitioner and public affairs analyst Maxwell Ede also criticised the judgment, describing it as unfortunate and advising the affected parties to pursue all available legal remedies.
Civil servant Tochi Ifejirika similarly warned that deregistering political parties could trigger unnecessary political unrest, arguing that the essence of democracy lies in providing voters with a broad range of political choices.
The affected parties have continued to reject the Federal High Court judgment.
In a statement issued by its Secretary in Oyo State, Olayinka Dairo, the Accord Party argued that it remained an active political organisation with elected representatives and therefore could not legitimately be deregistered.
“We have appealed the case in Abuja because we saw this coming earlier,” Dairo said, confirming that the party had already filed an appeal and would seek further legal protection.
The Action Alliance also questioned the timing of the judgment. In a statement signed by its National Chairman, Chief Kenneth Udeze, the party argued that reducing the number of registered political parties at a time when INEC had commenced preparations for the 2027 elections could undermine democratic inclusion.
“Multiparty democracy is the bedrock of our Constitution under Section 40. Reducing the number of registered parties mid-cycle narrows voter choice and weakens political competition. Nigerians deserve more platforms to express their aspirations, not fewer,” the statement said.
The party further warned that deregistration could disenfranchise members, destroy years of political organisation and create avoidable tensions within the electoral process.
It subsequently called on both the judiciary and INEC to maintain the status quo pending the final determination of all appeals and urged the National Assembly to review laws governing party deregistration to prevent similar disputes in future.
With the Court of Appeal’s latest ruling, the deregistration order remains suspended pending the determination of the substantive appeal, ensuring that the five affected parties retain their legal status for the time being.
Leave a comment