By Ikechukwu Nnochiri, Abuja

The Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja, on Tuesday, deferred the full-blown hearing of substantive appeals seeking to set aside the judgment that ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister the African Democratic Congress (ADC) and four other political parties until July 14.

The adjournment followed the failure of some of the parties to file and exchange the necessary processes in time.

Some of the respondents drew the attention of the court to processes they said were served on them before the commencement of the proceedings and requested time to file their responses.

Consequently, the Justice Abba Mohammed-led three-member panel shifted the scheduled hearing to enable all the parties to regularise their processes.

The panel had, on June 25, okayed the hearing of the appeals after housekeeping proceedings that enabled the parties in the matter to identify some of the processes they had filed.

Aside from the ADC, the other parties seeking nullification of the Federal High Court judgment are the Action Peoples Party (APP), Action Alliance (AA), Accord Party (AP), and the Zenith Labour Party (ZLP).

It will be recalled that the appellate court had, on June 16, ordered a stay of execution of the High Court judgment, even as it slammed the trial judge for disregarding the judicial hierarchy.

The panel berated Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja for disobeying an order it had made on May 22, which directed him to stay proceedings in the case pending the outcome of an appeal by the parties.

According to the appellate court, even though the trial judge’s attention had been drawn to the order for a stay of proceedings, he intentionally flouted it and went ahead to deliver the judgment.

It held that Justice Lifu’s action was “a form of judicial impertinence,” stressing that the Supreme Court had previously held that a judge who acts in such a manner “is unfit for the bench, as the conduct amounts to judicial rascality.”

The High Court had directed INEC to deregister the five political parties, which it said had failed to meet the constitutional requirements needed to warrant their continued existence and participation in future elections.

It also barred INEC from further according recognition to the parties, accepting nominations of candidates from the affected parties, or giving effect to their activities for the purposes of participating in the 2027 general elections.

Justice Lifu ordered the defendants to stop parading themselves as registered political parties in the country, saying he found merit in the suit filed against them by the National Forum of Former Legislators (NFFL).

The NFFL had, in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2637/2026, asked the court to determine whether INEC has a constitutional obligation to remove political parties that fail to meet the electoral performance thresholds set out in Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), as reinforced by the Electoral Act 2022 and INEC’s regulations.

It was the plaintiffs’ position that the five political parties listed as defendants had persistently failed to meet the constitutional benchmarks required to retain their registration.

The former legislators stressed that the requirements include winning at least 25 per cent of the votes in a state during a presidential election, or securing at least one elective seat at the national, state, or local government level.

They told the court that the ADC and the four other parties had performed poorly in both the 2023 general elections and the by-elections conducted by INEC, thereby failing to win seats across key tiers of government.

The litigants insisted that the continued existence of the ADC and the other defendants as recognised political parties is unlawful and undermines the integrity of the country’s electoral system.

Notably, the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, who is also a defendant in the matter, threw his weight behind the plaintiffs.

In processes filed before the court, the AGF argued that the continued existence of the said political parties violates extant provisions of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and ultimately undermines the nation’s electoral integrity.

The AGF argued that unless the court intervened, INEC would continue to act in breach of its constitutional duty by retaining parties that have failed to meet the minimum requirements prescribed by law.

However, dissatisfied with the trial court’s verdict, all the defendants, including INEC, have urged the appellate court to set it aside.