Abuja court to deliver judgment in suit seeking to deregister ADC, Accord Party, others June 5

The Federal High Court in Abuja set a June 5 hearing for the judgment in the case seeking to deregister the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Accord Party and other parties over alleged constitutional breaches.

Justice Peter Lifu scheduled the date after dismissing the applications for a stay of proceedings and for joinder filed by certain politicians and parties who wanted to be added to the suit.

The parties affected by the joinder ruling were Ademola Adeleke and Oluwafemi Abayomi Arabambi of the Accord Party, and Sani Yakubu Noma of the ADC.

In his ruling, Justice Lifu said that granting a stay at this stage would create hardship for the litigants, especially since political parties were already expected to submit candidate lists ahead of the upcoming elections.

The judge noted that the Supreme Court has repeatedly warned lower courts against granting undue stays of proceedings.

He also held that, because the applicants had already approached the Court of Appeal, the trial court should be allowed to finish hearing the matter unless the appellate court directed otherwise.

“It is my considered view not to grant the stay except otherwise decided by the upper court,” the judge said, adding that all issues raised by the applicants lacked merit and were dismissed.

Regarding the joinder applications, the court held that most of the political parties seeking representation were already defendants in the suit, making the inclusion of individual members unnecessary.

Justice Lifu therefore dismissed the applications to be joined in the suit by the 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th defendants.

The court also heard arguments from counsel to the Action Peoples Party (APP), Peter Abang, who sought dismissal of the suit on the ground that the issues had already been argued before the appellate court.

In a brief ruling, Justice Lifu said that the court would consider the Court of Appeal’s decision as it relates to the matter alongside the issues raised by the parties before delivering judgment.

He then directed the parties to amend and adopt their final processes in line with the accelerated hearing earlier ordered by the court.

During the adoption of final processes, counsel to the plaintiff, Yakubu Abdullahi Ruba, SAN, representing the Incorporated Trustees of the National Forum of Former Legislators, argued that the affected political parties had failed to meet constitutional requirements relating to electoral spread and performance.

Ruba relied on Supreme Court authorities, contending that parties must secure at least 25 percent of votes in prescribed elections to retain relevance under the law.

He urged the court to order the deregistration of the parties, insisting that none of the defendants had successfully countered the argument.

Representing the Attorney‑General of the Federation, Abdullahi Abdulrahman, told the court that the AGF has constitutional powers to defend and support actions aimed at ensuring compliance with the Constitution.

He urged the court to consider whether the political parties listed as third to seventh defendants had breached constitutional provisions.

Counsel for the 3rd to 7th defendants all urged the court to dismiss the suit with substantial cost.

The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2637/2026, was instituted by the Incorporated Trustees of the National Forum of Former Legislators against the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and several political parties, including the ADC, Action Alliance, APP, Accord Party and Zenith Labour Party.

At the previous sitting, defence counsel led by Musibau Adetunbi SAN for Accord Party, Shuaib Enejo Aruwa SAN for ADC, and other counsel had urged the court to suspend proceedings pending determination of appeals before the Court of Appeal.

They argued that continuing with the hearing while interlocutory appeals were pending could prejudice issues already before the appellate court.

However, the plaintiff opposed the request, arguing that no order from either the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court restrained the Federal High Court from proceeding with the matter.

INEC’s counsel, Haliru Mohammed, informed the court that the commission had already filed a counter‑affidavit to the substantive suit.

Justice Lifu, after taking arguments from parties and the adoption of processes, adjourned the matter to June 5 for judgment.