Nigeria’s Court of Appeal has suspended the deregistration of five political parties and delivered a blistering rebuke to a federal high court judge, intensifying a legal and political dispute that opposition figures say has placed the country’s judiciary under unprecedented scrutiny.
The ruling followed a controversial decision by the Federal High Court in Abuja ordering the deregistration of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Action Peoples Party (APP), Action Alliance (AA), Accord Party and Zenith Labour Party (ZLP) for allegedly failing to meet constitutional electoral performance requirements.
In a unanimous judgment on Tuesday, a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal, led by Justice A.B. Mohammed, stayed the execution of the lower court’s ruling and criticised Justice Peter Lifu for proceeding with the case despite an earlier appellate court order directing him to suspend proceedings.
The appellate court described the decision to continue with the matter as a direct challenge to judicial hierarchy and constitutional order.
“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,” the panel held.
In unusually strong language, the court invoked Supreme Court precedent to characterise the conduct as “the highest form of judicial impertinence”, warning that disregard for superior court orders threatened the integrity of the justice system.
Granting the application for a stay of execution, the court said it had a duty to safeguard its authority and ensure compliance with judicial directives.
The dispute centres on a judgment delivered by Justice Lifu on Monday ordering the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister the five parties under Section 225A of the Constitution, which sets performance benchmarks for political parties.
However, the Court of Appeal revealed that it had already issued an order on 22 May directing the lower court to halt proceedings pending the determination of an appeal.
During Tuesday’s hearing, INEC distanced itself from the controversy, telling the court that it only became aware of the deregistration ruling through media reports.
The commission’s lead counsel, Haliru Mohammed, said INEC had received no formal notice that the judgment would be delivered and therefore supported the application to suspend its enforcement.
“We only saw it as breaking news in the media,” he told the court.
Counsel to the ADC, Shuaibu Aruwa, SAN, alleged that notification of the judgment had been sent to the party through WhatsApp, a disclosure that prompted visible concern from members of the appellate panel.
Aruwa urged the court to intervene decisively, describing the conduct of the trial court as an “invitation to anarchy” and calling for disciplinary action.
The judgment was welcomed across opposition circles, where politicians and civil society groups portrayed the appellate ruling as a victory for democracy and judicial accountability.
ADC National Publicity Secretary Bolaji Abdullahi said the decision offered hope that confidence in the judiciary could still be restored.
“It indicates that the judiciary may still redeem itself,” he said, while urging the National Judicial Council (NJC) to address conduct that risks bringing the bench into disrepute.
APP National Leader Ikenga Ugochinyere described the ruling as vindication for the affected parties and warned that contradictory judicial decisions were eroding public trust in the courts.
“How do we expect citizens to obey court judgments when many people no longer see justice as blind, but rather as something influenced by individuals and personal interests?” he asked.
Civil society organisations also joined calls for an investigation into Justice Lifu’s actions. The Tap Initiative for Citizens’ Development formally petitioned the NJC, arguing that delivering judgment while appellate proceedings were active raised serious constitutional and procedural concerns.
The group said the case posed fundamental questions about respect for judicial hierarchy, legal certainty and public confidence in democratic institutions.
The controversy has also drawn intervention from senior political figures.
Former vice-president and ADC presidential candidate Atiku Abubakar welcomed the ruling and noted that INEC itself had sought the stay of execution.
He warned that what he described as politically charged judicial decisions risked damaging Nigeria’s democratic institutions.
“The disturbing spectacle of judicial contradictions and politically charged rulings playing out in our courts has placed the judiciary under intense public scrutiny,” he said.
At the centre of the political response has been ADC National Chairman David Mark, who argued that the real test was no longer for the opposition parties but for the judiciary itself.
Speaking at the party’s Strategic Communications Retreat in Abuja, the former Senate president said the handling of the case would determine whether public faith in the judicial system could be maintained.
“The ADC is not on trial. Rather, it is the judiciary that is on trial and the nation is waiting to see how the National Judicial Council is going to handle this precarious situation,” he said.
Mark accused the ruling All Progressives Congress of attempting to distract and weaken opposition forces ahead of the next electoral cycle, while insisting that the ADC would emerge stronger from the legal battle.
The episode has added a fresh layer of tension to Nigeria’s political landscape, with opposition parties increasingly framing judicial decisions as a battleground in the contest over the country’s democratic future and preparations for the 2027 elections.
