The anticipated judgment in a suit seeking the deregistration of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Accord Party and three other political parties was stalled on Friday 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, including the ADC, Action Alliance, Action Peoples Party (APP), Accord Party and Zenith Labour Party.
However, after lawyers and litigants waited for approximately two hours, a court official announced that the judge would not be sitting because he was away from Abuja.
According to the official, a new date for the judgment would be communicated to all parties once it is scheduled.
The matter had reached the judgment stage after the court, on May 20, dismissed applications for stay of proceedings and joinder filed by several politicians and interested parties seeking to be included in the case.
Those affected by the ruling included Ademola Adeleke and Oluwafemi Abayomi Arabambi of the Accord Party, as well as Sani Yakubu Noma of the ADC.
In his earlier ruling, Justice Lifu held that granting a stay of proceedings at that stage would create unnecessary hardship for litigants, particularly as political parties were expected to submit candidates’ names ahead of forthcoming elections.
The judge also noted that the Supreme Court had consistently advised lower courts against granting unwarranted stays of proceedings.
“It is my considered view not to grant the stay except otherwise decided by the upper court,” Justice Lifu ruled, dismissing all applications seeking to halt proceedings.
On the requests for joinder, the court held that the political parties seeking representation were already listed as defendants in the suit, making the inclusion of individual members unnecessary. The applications were consequently dismissed.
The court had also entertained arguments on an application by counsel to the Action Peoples Party, Peter Abang, who sought the dismissal of the suit on the grounds that similar issues were already before the Court of Appeal.
In a brief ruling, Justice Lifu stated that the court would consider the appellate court’s decisions alongside arguments presented by the parties before delivering judgment.
During the adoption of final written addresses, counsel to the plaintiff, Yakubu Abdullahi Ruba, SAN, argued that the affected political parties had failed to satisfy constitutional requirements relating to electoral spread and performance.
Relying on Supreme Court authorities, Ruba contended that political parties must secure at least 25 percent of votes in prescribed elections to maintain relevance under constitutional provisions.
He urged the court to order the deregistration of the affected parties, insisting that the defendants had failed to adequately counter the arguments presented.
Representing the Attorney General of the Federation, Abdullahi Abdulrahman told the court that the office of the Attorney General possesses constitutional authority to support actions aimed at ensuring compliance with the constitution.
He urged the court to examine whether the parties listed as the third to seventh defendants had violated constitutional provisions.
Counsel representing the affected political parties, including Musibau Adetunbi, SAN, for Accord Party and Shuaib Enejo Aruwa, SAN, for the ADC, had earlier urged the court to suspend proceedings pending the determination of appeals already filed before the Court of Appeal.
They argued that continuing with the hearing while interlocutory appeals remained unresolved could prejudice matters already before the appellate court.
However, 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, informed the court that the electoral commission had already 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 a case that could have significant implications for the affected political parties ahead of future elections.
