Judge’s Absence Delays Verdict in ADC, Accord Deregistration Suit

A Federal High Court in Abuja on Friday failed to deliver its expected judgment in a suit seeking the deregistration of five political parties, including the African Democratic Congress (ADC) and Accord Party, after the presiding judge, Justice Peter Lifu, was absent from court.

The case, filed by the Incorporated Trustees of the National Forum of Former Legislators, challenges the continued registration of several political parties over alleged violations of constitutional provisions.

The defendants in the suit include the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), ADC, Accord Party, Action Alliance (AA), Action Peoples Party (APP), and the Zenith Labour Party (ZLP).

Lawyers and parties involved in the matter had gathered at the Federal High Court on Friday in anticipation of the judgment, which had earlier been scheduled for June 5. However, after waiting for about two hours, a court official informed those present that Justice Lifu was away from Abuja and would not be sitting.

The official explained that a fresh date for the judgment would be communicated to all parties once arrangements are made.
The judgment date was fixed after the court concluded hearings and dismissed several applications filed by politicians and political parties seeking either to halt proceedings or join the suit. Among those affected by the ruling were some members of the Accord Party and the ADC who had sought to be included in the matter.

While ruling on those applications in May, the court held that suspending proceedings at that stage could create difficulties for the parties involved, especially as political parties were already preparing to submit names of candidates for future elections. The judge also maintained that there was no order from a higher court directing the trial court to stop hearing the matter.

During the hearing, lawyers representing some of the political parties had argued that the case should be put on hold pending the determination of appeals already filed before the Court of Appeal. They maintained that continuing with the proceedings could affect issues currently before the appellate court.

The plaintiff opposed that request, insisting that no court order existed to prevent the Federal High Court from concluding the matter. Counsel to INEC also informed the court that the electoral commission had filed its response to the substantive suit.

In the substantive case, the plaintiff argued that the affected political parties failed to meet constitutional requirements relating to electoral performance and spread. The plaintiff urged the court to order their deregistration, maintaining that the parties had not provided convincing arguments against the claims.

The Attorney General of the Federation, represented by counsel, also participated in the proceedings and asked the court to determine whether the parties had acted contrary to constitutional provisions.
On their part, lawyers representing the political parties asked the court to dismiss the suit, arguing that the claims lacked merit.

With the judgment now postponed, the legal battle over the future status of the affected political parties remains unresolved, pending the announcement of a new date by the court.