Follow Us on Google
Judicial rascality refers to the deliberate abuse of judicial power, where judges or courts act recklessly, capriciously, or unethically to circumvent the law. It describes a culture of lawlessness within the law, where the legal process is manipulated to serve ulterior or political motives rather than to uphold justice. Judicial impertinence, on the other hand, is a legal term describing a situation where a lower court judge brazenly disregards the authority, hierarchy, or express orders of a higher appellate court. It occurs when a judge proceeds to hear a case, deliver a conflicting judgment, or issue an order despite knowing that a higher court is already handling the matter or has explicitly instructed otherwise.
These two phrases, judicial rascality and judicial impertinence, were how the Court of Appeal (COA) described the judgement of the Federal High Court delivered by Justice Peter Lifu, sitting in Abuja. The Appellate Court was miffed that despite its earlier order of stay of proceedings on 22 May 2026, on the matter before the lower court, Justice Lifu proceeded to give a judgement ordering the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister five political parties including the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Zenith Labour Party (ZLP), Accord (A), Action Alliance (AA), and Action Peoples Party (APP).
Justice Lifu, in his judgement on Monday, 15 June 2026, noted that the affected parties breached Section 225 of the Nigerian Constitution. This section gives INEC the power to deregister political parties that failed to win any elective position or 25 per cent of the votes in the previous round of elections at the federal, state and local government levels. The judgement, if immediately enforced, was bound to lead to a deluge of disqualifications of candidates running for elective offices in the 2027 general elections and the off-cycle governorship elections slated for June (today) and August this year in Ekiti and Osun states respectively. Among notable candidates in the firing line of the verdict are Atiku Abubakar, who recently emerged as the presidential candidate of the ADC, and Osun State Governor Ademola Adeleke, who is seeking a second term in office on the platform of Accord in the governorship election slated for August. This reveals the travails of opposition leaders under the Tinubu administration.
The suit was filed by the National Forum of Former Legislators against INEC, the Attorney-General of the Federation and the affected opposition parties. The Attorney-General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi, who was joined as a defendant in the suit, threw the weight of his office behind the suit and the prayers sought. He called for the deregistration of the affected parties. INEC, however, opposed the suit. The electoral body described the plaintiff as a busybody lacking legal standing to institute the action and urged the court to dismiss it as unmeritorious.
Addressing the argument of the Counsel before him that the Court of Appeal had stayed the proceedings, the judge stressed that trial courts must respect decisions and orders of appellate courts in line with the constitutional hierarchy of courts, however, he noted that no order staying proceedings had been served on the court before the parties adopted their final written addresses. The judge further observed that the law does not recognise the concept of arresting a judgment after a case has been fixed for delivery as the defendants in the case were attempting to do. This implies that in the mind of Justice Lifu, the order of the Court of Appeal, after the parties adopted their final written addresses, is meaningless, illegal, and orchestrated to arrest the judgement of his court. He defiantly went ahead, against the order of the COA, to deliver his judgement.
Analysing the matters as stated above, in relation to prevailing laws, it is pertinent to note that the orders of a court must be obeyed no matter how perverse, until set aside by the court, or on appeal. Assuming without conceding that the order of the COA directing Justice Lifu to stay proceedings was even perverse, the learned Judge was still expected to obey it until set aside by the court or the apex court. Going ahead to pronounce judgement in contravention of the extant order of the COA tallies with the toga of judicial rascality and judicial impertinence which the COA labelled his action.
Other News
Justice Lifu even admitted that there are exceptions in which the order for stay of proceedings should be obeyed if it is brought after the parties adopted their final written addresses. To him, this exception exists where the judicial process is about to be abused, in which case a court has a duty to intervene. In essence, the COA had a duty to intervene if it believes that judicial process was about to be abused in Lifu’s court and it did. It is not in Lifu’s power to determine that judicial process is not being abused in his court because he can’t be a judge in his own cause. The order of proceedings was legitimately granted by the COA and the lower court was bound to obey it. This is in line with the doctrine of stare decisis which demands that the orders of a higher court must be obeyed by a lower court no matter how perverse.
The locus standi of the plaintiff is absolutely questionable in this suit. The name “The National Forum of Former Legislators” is quite funny to be seeking deregistration of political parties. What interest do they have in the matter, and what injuries do they stand to suffer if the parties are not deregistered? These are legitimate questions that should be on the minds of every litigant while bringing any matter to court.
Assuming that the plaintiff came to court to seek the appropriate interpretation of the Constitution as regards this matter, the conduct of the Judge still fell short of judicial competence. Almost all the parties met the condition not to be deregistered by INEC. ADC had two members of the HOR from Kogi after the last 2023 general elections. Zenith Labour Party has councillors and chairmen of local government areas in Abia State. So also the rest. The Constitution simply requires a party to win any elective position or 25 per cent of the votes in the previous round of elections at the federal, state and local government levels to remain registered. There was then no legal basis for the Learned Judge to order INEC to deregister the political parties. The allegation of political motives for the action is justified, and it is judicial rascality where the legal process is manipulated to serve ulterior or political motives rather than to uphold justice.
The role of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, in joining the plaintiff to call for the deregistration of the political parties disclosed clearly that the action was sanctioned by President Bola Tinubu. The AGF is an appointee of the President who serves at his pleasure. The Constitution is clear that the President can directly govern the country or indirectly through his ministers. It is unfortunate that the government of the day is using the instrumentality of the judiciary to emasculate the opposition parties in order to make way for President Tinubu to run unopposed in 2027. This is undemocratic and reveals the travails of the opposition parties under President Tinubu.
The surprising thing that emerged in this matter is the informed, unbiased position of INEC. Joash Amupitan, the Chairman of INEC, and the Commission, stood firm on the side of the law and democracy in this debacle. At the Federal High Court, INEC deposed to an affidavit opposing the deregistration and asserting that the parties met the requirements of the Constitution to remain registered. When Justice Lifu delivered his judgement, INEC refused to unconditionally deregister the parties, but rightly approached the COA to stop the rampaging Judge, and it succeeded. This is how an independent agency is expected to operate. Although it is too early to assume that Joash Amupitan has repented from his sin when he de-recognised ADC leadership without any good reason, he has to be commended when he does something right. He must be knocked for his late approval for about four more political parties, including the ADC, to participate in the Enugu North Senatorial bye-election on Saturday, 20 June 2026, just about less than one week to the election. This amounts to indirect disqualification of the parties and their candidates from participating.
The use of judicial rascality and impertinence to disrupt opposition parties and opposition leaders in Nigeria has a historical origin. During the June 12 1993 election, Justice Bassey Ikpeme issued ex-parte orders to stop June 12 election at the 11th hour but failed. He went further to order that the announcement of the results should be suspended. This is despite the fact that the decree for the conduct of June 12 election ousted the jurisdiction of the courts to interfere in the conduct of the elections. The Justice did not end well on the bench. Justice Lifu is respectfully advised to refrain from all conducts that would make him to receive the label of judicial rascality and judicial impertinence because most times any Judge that receives such label hardly ends well on the bench. The COA must be commended for the speedy resolution of the logjam as delay would have defeated the cause of justice in this regard. It stayed the execution of the judgement of Justice Lifu within 24 hours of delivery to save the deregistered political parties from being disallowed to participate in the 2027 general elections. The National Judicial Council (NJC) should look into the matter with a view to investigating the probable cause of such impunity and ensuring that the dignity of the judiciary is restored through appropriate remedies.
