Just-In: Appeal Court Overturns Deregistration Order Against ADC, Four Other Parties
In a unanimous judgment delivered by a three-member panel of justices led by Justice Abba Mohammed, the appellate court held that the June 15 judgment of the Federal High Court was a nullity, having been delivered without jurisdiction.
The appellate court held that the trial court wrongly assumed jurisdiction and made the order on an incompetent suit filed by a non-juristic entity.
It held that there was no valid suit that could have warranted the consequential order directing INEC to deregister the affected political parties.
The appellate court further held that the trial court failed to properly evaluate the evidence before it, noting that proof showing the parties had won various elective seats in previous elections was ignored.
It also held that the lower court acted in defiance of an order directing it to stay proceedings pending the determination of an interlocutory appeal.
The appellate court consequently held that the Federal High Court ought to have dismissed the substantive suit for want of jurisdiction and merit.
It allowed the separate appeals filed by the political parties, restored their registration, and awarded costs against the National Forum of Former Legislators, which instituted the suit.
The affected parties are the African Democratic Congress, Action Peoples Party, Action Alliance, Accord Party and Zenith Labour Party.
The appellate court declared that all the affected political parties remain duly registered.
The appellate court had, on June 16, stayed the execution of the trial court’s judgment pending the determination of the appeals.
In its decision, the panel faulted the conduct of Justice Peter Lifu for proceeding with the case, despite an earlier order made on May 22 directing him to stay proceedings pending the outcome of the appeal.
The appellate court noted that although Justice Lifu’s attention had been drawn to the stay order, he proceeded to deliver judgment.
It described the action as “a form of judicial impertinence,” adding that the Supreme Court had previously held that a judge who acts in such a manner “is unfit for the bench, as the conduct amounts to judicial rascality.”