The scheduled judgment in a high-profile suit seeking the deregistration of several political parties, including the African Democratic Congress (ADC) and Accord Party, was on Friday stalled following the absence of Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja.
Justice Lifu had earlier fixed June 5, 2026, for judgment in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2637/2026, filed by the Incorporated Trustees of the National Forum of Former Legislators against the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and five political parties.
The defendants in the case include the ADC, Accord Party, Action Alliance, Action Peoples Party (APP), and Zenith Labour Party.
However, lawyers, litigants, and interested parties who gathered at the court for the anticipated ruling were left disappointed after waiting for about two hours before a court official announced that the judge would not be sitting.
According to the official, Justice Lifu was out of Abuja and would therefore be unable to deliver the judgment as scheduled.
The court further informed parties that a new date would be communicated in due course.
The suit has attracted considerable attention within political circles due to its potential implications for the affected parties ahead of future elections.
The judgment was expected after Justice Lifu, on May 20, dismissed separate applications for stay of proceedings and joinder filed by some politicians and party members seeking to be included in the case.
Among those affected by the ruling were Ademola Adeleke and Oluwafemi Abayomi Arabambi of the Accord Party, as well as Sani Yakubu Noma of the ADC.
READ ALSO: Breaking: Babachir Lawal quits ADC, alleges Atiku allies manipulated party primaries
In dismissing the applications, the judge held that granting a stay of proceedings at that stage would cause undue hardship to litigants, particularly as political parties were preparing to submit names of candidates for forthcoming elections.
Justice Lifu also emphasized that the Supreme Court had consistently discouraged lower courts from granting unnecessary stays of proceedings, especially where such actions could delay the administration of justice.
The court noted that the applicants had already approached the Court of Appeal and that the trial court should be allowed to conclude proceedings unless directed otherwise by the appellate court.
“It is my considered view not to grant the stay except otherwise decided by the upper court,” the judge had ruled, adding that the applications lacked merit and were accordingly dismissed.
On the requests for joinder, the court held that the political parties involved were already defendants in the matter and that including individual members would be unnecessary. Consequently, the applications by the affected parties seeking to join the suit were dismissed.
During earlier proceedings, counsel to the Action Peoples Party, Peter Abang, had also urged the court to dismiss the case on the grounds that issues raised in the suit were already before the Court of Appeal.
Justice Lifu, however, stated that the court would consider relevant appellate court decisions alongside arguments presented by all parties before delivering its final judgment.
At the substantive hearing, counsel to the plaintiff, Yakubu Abdullahi Ruba, SAN, argued that the affected political parties had failed to satisfy constitutional requirements relating to electoral performance and national spread.
Relying on previous Supreme Court decisions, Ruba contended that political parties must demonstrate a specified level of electoral support, including securing at least 25 percent of votes in relevant elections, to justify their continued existence under constitutional provisions.
He urged the court to order the deregistration of the parties, maintaining that the defendants had failed to effectively counter the legal arguments presented by the plaintiff.
Representing the Attorney-General of the Federation, Abdullahi Abdulrahman told the court that the Attorney-General possesses constitutional authority to support actions aimed at ensuring compliance with the Constitution.
He urged the court to examine whether the political parties listed as the third to seventh defendants had violated constitutional provisions governing political party operations.
On their part, counsel representing the affected political parties, including Musibau Adetunbi, SAN, for Accord Party and Shuaib Enejo Aruwa, SAN, for ADC, urged the court to dismiss the suit and award substantial costs against the plaintiff.
The defence team had earlier argued that proceedings should be suspended pending the determination of interlocutory appeals already before the Court of Appeal, insisting that continuing with the matter could prejudice issues currently under appellate consideration.
However, the plaintiff opposed the request, stressing that neither the Court of Appeal nor the Supreme Court had issued any order restraining the Federal High Court from continuing with the case.
Counsel to INEC, Haliru Mohammed, also informed the court that the electoral commission had filed a counter-affidavit in response to the substantive suit.
With the judgment now postponed indefinitely, political observers and party stakeholders will have to wait for a new date from the court to determine the fate of the parties involved in the legal challenge.