Deregistration of ADC, others was judicial rascality — A-COURT

***Slams Justice Lifu’s action ***Verdict corrected grave miscarriage of justice — ADC By Ikechukwu Nnochiri, Luminous Jannamike & Shina Abubakar ABUJA — The Court of Appeal in Abuja yesterday, vacated the judgment that directed the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, to deregister African Democratic Congress, ADC, and four other political parties accused of failing to meet constitutional requirements, describing Justice Peter Lifu’s action as judicial rascality, impertinence. The other parties include Action Peoples Party, APP; Action Alliance, AA; Accord Party, AP; and Zenith Labour Party, ZLP. Recall that Justice Lifu had given the order to deregister the parties, despite the order made by the appellate court on May 22, directing him to stay proceedings in the case, pending the outcome of an appeal by the parties.

The appellate court, in a unanimous decision by a three-member panel of Justices yesterday, held that the order which the Federal High Court issued to the electoral body on June 15, amounted to a nullity. It held that the High Court wrongly assumed jurisdiction and made the order on an incompetent suit that was filed by a non-juristic entity. However, ADC in a swift reaction, described the verdict as correction of miscarriage of justice, and hailed the Appeal Court for doing so.

National Chairman of ADC, Senator David Mark, in his reaction, described the party’s deregistration bid as an assault on democracy, while the presidential candidate for the 2027 elections, Atiku Abubakar, said the forthcoming election must be won at the ballot and not in court. Osun State governor, Ademola Adeleke, who is contesting his second term ticket on the platform of Accord Party, said ruling has put to rest efforts to keep him off the ballot paper. According to the appellate court, there was no valid suit that could have warranted the consequential order that directed INEC to derecognise the political parties.

It noted that the trial court failed to properly evaluate evidence placed before it, stressing that proof that the parties won various seats in previous elections was ignored. It also held that the High Court acted in defiance of an order that directed it to stay proceedings in the case. It held that the high court ought to have dismissed the substantive case for want of jurisdiction and merit.

Consequently, the appellate court, in its lead ju…