By John Azu
Fresh controversy has trailed Monday’s judgment of the Federal High Court in Abuja ordering the deregistration of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) and four other political parties, following revelations that the ruling was delivered despite a subsisting Court of Appeal order staying further proceedings in the case.
Justice Peter Lifu had ruled that the ADC, Action Alliance (AA), Accord Party (AP), Zenith Labour Party (ZLP) and Action Peoples Party (APP) failed to meet constitutional requirements for continued registration, holding that they did not produce elected officials as envisaged under Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution.
However, documents obtained after the judgment showed that the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, had on May 22 directed the Federal High Court to suspend further proceedings pending the determination of an appeal arising from the matter.
The appellate court order, contained in a Certified True Copy signed by a three-member panel comprising Justices Mohammed Danjuma, Adebukola Banjoko and Oyejoju Oyewumi, directed the lower court to halt proceedings until issues raised in the appeal filed by the Accord Party were resolved.
The appeal stemmed from a challenge by Osun State Governor Ademola Adeleke against an earlier ruling of the Federal High Court which declined his application to join the suit instituted by the National Forum of Former Legislators (NFFL), led by Raphael Igbokwe, seeking the deregistration of the affected political parties.
Adeleke had argued that he was an interested party in the matter, having emerged as the governorship candidate of the Accord Party for the August 15 Osun governorship election.
Dissatisfied with the Federal High Court’s refusal to join him in the suit, the governor, through his counsel, Musibau Adetunbi (SAN), approached the Court of Appeal, which subsequently ordered a stay of proceedings and fixed October 27 for the hearing of the interlocutory appeal.
Despite the appellate court’s directive, Justice Lifu proceeded with judgment on Monday after dismissing objections raised by lawyers representing affected parties. The judge reportedly described notices of appeal and enrolled orders presented before him by counsel to the parties as attempts to frustrate the delivery of judgment.
The development has raised questions within legal and political circles, particularly as the Federal High Court had earlier adjourned judgment indefinitely before unexpectedly reconvening on Monday to deliver its verdict. Sources familiar with the proceedings noted that the matter was not originally listed on the day’s cause list before parties were invited to court.
Adding another layer to the dispute, the Court of Appeal is also scheduled to hear a separate appeal filed by the APP on June 16.
Counsel to the APP, Peter Abang, argued in the appeal that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter because issues relating to the party’s deregistration had already been determined by courts in Owerri. He further maintained that the party had produced local government chairmen in both Abia and Nasarawa states, contrary to claims that it lacked elected officials.
The judgment has also triggered concerns over its potential implications for the 2027 electoral cycle. The ADC is currently a key opposition platform, with former Vice President Atiku Abubakar reportedly emerging as its presidential candidate alongside former Rivers State Governor Rotimi Amaechi as running mate, while Governor Adeleke is seeking re-election under the Accord Party banner in Osun State.
Obi Demands Reversal
Reacting to the judgment, former Labour Party presidential candidate Peter Obi called for an immediate reversal of the decision, warning that it could further erode public confidence in Nigeria’s democratic institutions and judicial system.
In a statement issued by the Peter Obi Media Room (POMR) and signed by Ibrahim Umar, Obi described the ruling as part of a broader pattern of institutional decline driven by political interests.
“When the controversy surrounding the removal of the former Chief Justice of Nigeria, Walter Onnoghen, unfolded, I expressed a concern to a friend: that the greatest damage might not be immediate, but the message it sends about the sanctity and independence of our institutions to the world,” he said.
“Strong economies are built on trust. Investors can manage security risks, policy risks, and even market risks. What they fear most is uncertainty in the rule of law and a judiciary that is perceived to be vulnerable to political pressure.
“Today, many Nigerians have lost confidence in systems that should protect them. Businesses increasingly request that their contracts be governed by foreign jurisdictions because they have greater confidence in those institutions than in our own. That should concern every patriot.
“We must never sacrifice our sacred institutions on the altar of politics. Nations rise when institutions are stronger than individuals.
“The Federal High Court judgment ordering the deregistration of the ADC and other political parties is just one of those activities that further reduces the common man’s trust in our legal systems, it should be reversed.
“I pledge that we will restore the dignity, independence, and integrity of the judiciary. The common man must have a voice. The business community must be protected from legal uncertainty and intimidation. Justice must be impartial, accessible, and respected by all.”
Legal Concerns
A legal practitioner, Adam Abdulkadir, also questioned both the constitutional and procedural foundations of the judgment, arguing that the decision could have far-reaching consequences for Nigeria’s democratic system.
According to him, the constitutional provisions governing political parties were designed to promote political participation and democratic competition, rather than restrict them.
“More fundamentally, serious procedural questions appear to surround the decision. It has been widely reported that objections were raised and overruled before the trial court and taken up on appeal. Appeal No. CA/ABJ/CV/569/2026, the Court of Appeal had reportedly granted an order staying further proceedings. If that position is accurate, then one must ask a simple but critical question: what authority remained for the lower court to continue with the substantive matter?
“The law is settled that jurisdiction is the foundation upon which every judicial proceeding rests. Once a court acts without jurisdiction, no matter how brilliantly reasoned its judgment may be, the entire exercise collapses. A subsisting order of stay of proceedings is not a mere procedural inconvenience. It is a binding directive which must be obeyed unless and until it is set aside by a competent appellate court. The decision therefore appears vulnerable not only on constitutional grounds but also on procedural and jurisdictional grounds.
“The judgment may be cloaked in legality, but it is politically corrosive and procedurally defective. It narrows the democratic arena, delegitimizes elections, and emboldens authoritarian tendencies. Nigerians must view it with a pinch of salt, recognizing it as part of a larger struggle to preserve the integrity of their democracy.”
With appeals already pending before the Court of Appeal and fresh legal challenges expected, the fate of the judgment and its implications for the affected political parties are likely to remain the subject of intense judicial and political scrutiny in the weeks ahead.