Mark Faults FG as Appeal Court Halts ADC Deregistration

National Chairman of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), David Mark, has criticised the Federal Government following the Court of Appeal’s decision to suspend the enforcement of a Federal High Court judgment that ordered the deregistration of the ADC and four other political parties.

Reacting to the ruling, Mark said the development had placed the judiciary under intense public scrutiny and cautioned against any attempt to manipulate the political process through state institutions.

The appellate court’s decision was welcomed by political stakeholders and affected parties, many of whom also demanded disciplinary action against Justice Peter Lifu for allegedly disregarding an earlier order issued by a higher court.

Party leaders reassured members and supporters that the ADC would remain a recognised political platform and continue to participate in future elections.

The Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja on Tuesday granted a stay of execution on the judgment that directed the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister the ADC, Action Peoples Party, Action Alliance, Accord Party and Zenith Labour Party.

In a unanimous verdict delivered by a three-member panel headed by Justice A. B. Mohammed, the appellate court strongly criticised Justice Lifu for proceeding with the judgment despite an earlier order issued on May 22 directing him to halt further action in the matter.

The panel described the judge’s conduct as a direct challenge to the judicial hierarchy and constitutional order, stressing that lower courts are bound to obey directives issued by superior courts.

According to the court, proceeding with the judgment despite the subsisting order represented a serious breach of judicial procedure and undermined the authority of the appellate court.

The justices further cited Supreme Court precedents, noting that such actions amount to judicial misconduct and threaten the integrity of the legal system.

Emphasising its constitutional responsibility to supervise lower courts, the appellate court stated that it would not hesitate to exercise its authority to ensure compliance with lawful orders.

Consequently, the court granted the application for a stay of execution, effectively suspending the implementation of the deregistration order pending the determination of the appeal.

Justice Lifu had, on Monday, ruled that INEC should remove the five political parties from the register of recognised political parties, citing their alleged failure to satisfy constitutional requirements relating to electoral performance in the 2023 general elections.

The ruling was based on Section 225A of the Constitution, which outlines conditions under which political parties may be deregistered.

During Tuesday’s proceedings, INEC disclosed that it was taken by surprise by the judgment and only became aware of the decision through media reports.

Counsel to the commission, Haliru Mohammed, informed the court that INEC had not received any official communication regarding the delivery of the judgment and therefore did not oppose the application seeking a stay of execution.

He added that the electoral body recognised the subsisting appellate court order that had restrained the lower court from delivering its verdict.

Representing the ADC, senior advocate Shuaibu Aruwa told the court that notification of the judgment had allegedly been communicated to the party through WhatsApp, a revelation that reportedly drew reactions from members of the appellate panel.

Aruwa described the situation as troubling and urged the Court of Appeal to take decisive action to safeguard the integrity of the judiciary.

He argued that the circumstances surrounding the judgment called for urgent intervention and appealed to the court to suspend its enforcement without delay while considering further disciplinary measures.

The legal dispute has sparked renewed debate about judicial accountability and the independence of democratic institutions, with many observers viewing the appellate court’s intervention as a significant development in the ongoing battle over the future of the affected political parties.