The Court of Appeal in Abuja has adjourned until July 7 the hearing of an appeal challenging the deregistration of five political parties, including the African Democratic Congress (ADC), by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
The appellate court shifted the hearing from June 25, the earlier date fixed for the matter, to allow parties in the suit sufficient time to file and exchange their briefs of argument ahead of the substantive hearing.
The appeal arose from a June 16 judgment of the Federal High Court in Abuja, which ordered INEC to deregister the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Action Alliance (AA), Accord Party, Zenith Labour Party (ZLP) and Action Peoples Party (APP) for allegedly failing to comply with Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution.
The provision empowers INEC to deregister political parties under specified conditions, including failure to win elective positions in elections.
At Thursday’s proceedings, counsel to the Accord Party, Musibau Adetunbi (SAN), informed the three-member panel that the record of appeal and the certified true copy of the Federal High Court judgment were only obtained on Monday and subsequently transmitted to the Court of Appeal in line with legal requirements.
The senior advocate therefore sought a brief adjournment to enable parties file and exchange their respective briefs of argument before the appeal is heard on its merits.
The application was not opposed by any of the parties.
Consequently, the presiding justice, Justice Abubakar Mohammed, adjourned the matter to July 7 at 2 p.m.
Although Adetunbi requested three days within which parties could complete the filing and exchange of processes, Justice Mohammed explained that some members of the panel would be away from Abuja next week for a special court session, making the July 7 date more convenient.
The latest development comes barely days after the Court of Appeal granted a stay of execution of the Federal High Court judgment and strongly criticised the decision of the trial court to proceed with delivery of its judgment despite being notified of a pending appeal and an application for stay.
In its ruling on June 16, the appellate court described the action of the lower court as a serious violation of judicial hierarchy and constitutional order.
It held that the lower court’s action was “the highest form of judicial impertinence,” stressing that the Supreme Court previously held that a judge who acted in such manner “is unfit for the bench as it amounts to 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.
“This court has the duty to invoke its powers in ensuring that its orders are made.
“The application for a stay of execution is hereby granted. The enforcement of the judgment is stayed,” the appellate court held.
By granting the stay of execution, the Court of Appeal effectively suspended the implementation of the Federal High Court judgment pending the determination of the substantive appeal.
The case is expected to test the scope of INEC’s constitutional powers regarding party deregistration, as well as the procedural issues surrounding the trial court’s handling of the matter.
The substantive appeal is now scheduled for hearing on July 7.