Appeal Court Voids Deregistration of ADC, Four Other Parties

The ruling restores the legal status of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Action Peoples Party (APP), Action Alliance (AA), Accord Party and Zenith Labour Party (ZLP)

ADC

The Court of Appeal in Abuja has overturned a Federal High Court judgment that directed the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister the African Democratic Congress (ADC) and four other political parties, ruling that the lower court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

In a unanimous decision delivered on Tuesday by a three-member panel led by Justice Abba Mohammed, the appellate court declared the June 15 judgment of the Federal High Court a nullity. It held that the case was founded on an incompetent suit instituted by a non-juristic entity, leaving no valid legal basis for the order compelling INEC to remove the parties from the register of political parties.

The ruling restores the legal status of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Action Peoples Party (APP), Action Alliance (AA), Accord Party and Zenith Labour Party (ZLP), all of which had faced deregistration under the lower court’s judgment.

Beyond the jurisdictional defect, the Court of Appeal found that the trial court failed to properly assess the evidence before it. The appellate court held that documentary proof showing the affected parties had won elective offices in previous elections was disregarded, undermining the factual basis of the Federal High Court’s decision.

The court also criticised the conduct of the trial judge, Justice Peter Lifu, for proceeding with the substantive case despite an earlier appellate order directing him to stay proceedings pending the determination of an interlocutory appeal.

According to the judgment, Justice Lifu was aware of the Court of Appeal’s May 22 stay order but nonetheless proceeded to deliver judgment on June 15. The appellate panel described the action as “a form of judicial impertinence,” citing previous Supreme Court decisions that characterised similar conduct as “judicial rascality” and inconsistent with the standards expected of the bench.

 

 

Share this article

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Receive the latest news

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Get notified about new articles