*Says Judge Exhibited Judicial Rascality, Affront To Courts Hierarchy

*‘Judgment Highest Form Of Judicial Impertinence’

*Group Petitions NJC, CJN, Seeks Judge’s Sanction

THE Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, has suspended the execution of the judgment delivered by a Federal High Court in Abuja, presided over by Justice Peter Lifu, ordering the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister the African Democratic Party (ADC), Action Peoples Party (APP), Action Alliance (AA), Accord Party (AP) and Zenith Labour Party (ZLP) for alleged failure to meet the constitutional requirements to warrant their continued existence and participation in future elections.

    In a unanimous ruling on Tuesday, June 16, a three-member panel, led by Justice Abba Mohammed, held that Justice Peter Lifu of an Abuja Federal High Court, on Monday, June 16, acted in disregard of an earlier order of the appellate court when he proceeded to deliver the judgment.

    This followed a suit filed by the National Forum of Former Legislators (NFFL), arguing that the parties no longer met the constitutional thresholds required to retain their registration.

    The panel recalled that the lower court had been directed on May 22 to stay proceedings in the matter, pending the determination of appeals filed before the court of appeal, regretting that the Judge proceeded with the case, despite being aware of the subsisting order.

    Before delivering the judgment, lawyers for some of the affected parties drew the court’s attention to the court of appeal order, but Justice Lifu declined to halt the proceedings, saying no subsisting order of stay of proceedings from the court of appeal had been served on his court before parties adopted their final written addresses and before the matter was fixed for judgment.

    He also ruled that the law does not recognise the arrest of judgment, concluding that there was no express order preventing him from delivering the decision.

    However, the higher courtdescribed the judgment as the highest form of judicial impertinence, saying the trial Judge brazenly disregarded its earlier order, holding Justice Lifu exhibited judicial rascality by going ahead to hear and make the order, despite its (Court of Appeal) earlier order and the pendency of the matter before it.

    It ordered a stay of the execution of the judgment, holding that Justice Lifu’s action amounted to an affront to the hierarchy of courts, and that the lower court’s action was “the highest form of judicial impertinence.”

    While stressing that the Supreme Court previously held that a Judge who acted in such a manner “is unfit for the bench, as it amounts to judicial rascality,” the appeal court added: “Courts are enjoined to protect their integrity. This Court has supervisory authority over the trial court.

    “The decision of the lower court to proceed with the judgment, despite the express order of this court, is a brazen violation of the hierarchy of the court and the 1999 Constitution.

    “This court has the duty to invoke its powers in ensuring that its orders are made.

    “The application for a stay of execution is here yet granted. The enforcement of the judgment is stayed.”

    The appellate court subsequently fixed June 25 for the hearing of the appeals, directing appellants to file their processes within three days, while the respondents were given two days to respond.

   Meanwhile, a civil society organisation, Tap Initiative for Citizens’ Development, has petitioned the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, and the National Judicial Council (NJC), which she chairs, seeking an investigation into the conduct of Justice Lifu over the judgment, despite a pending appeal and a subsisting Court of Appeal order staying proceedings in the case.

    It urged the NJC, which is empowered to discipline Nigerian Judges, to investigate Lifu over “possible judicial misconduct” and sanction him if a wrongdoing is established against him.

    The petition, dated June 16, and received by the Office of the CJN on the same day, was signed by the group’s Executive Director, Mbasekei Martin Obono, a lawyer.

    INEC had asked the appellate court to stay the execution of the Justice Lifu judgment, in support of a notice of appeal lodged by the affected political parties.

    INEC, through its team of lawyers, led by Haliru Mohammed, had, in its argument, told the court that it was not notified the judgment would be delivered and only heard about it through media reports.

   “My Lords, we are aware of an order that this court made on May 22, which stopped the delivery of the judgment of the lower court, which was initially reserved for delivery on June 5.

    “We were not aware of any notice from the court regarding the delivery of the judgment. We only saw it as breaking news in the media.

    “We, therefore, do not oppose the application of the appellant to stay the execution of the judgment.”

    In the same vein, Counsel to the ADC, Shuaibu Aruwa (SAN), told the appellate court that Justice Lifu notified the party of the delivery of the judgment via WhatsApp, a decision he said was an invitation to anarchy.

    While urging the appellate court to invoke its powers and sanction Justice Lifu for disrespecting the judicial hierarchy, Aruwa added: “Sincerely, my Lords, a lot has happened to the judiciary and this profession. What the trial judge did was dare this Court of Appeal by insisting that no one could arrest his judgment, even after his attention was drawn to the stay order from this court.

    “The action of the trial Judge calls for swift and extraordinary measures from this court. We have come to the stage where this court should press the reset button.

    “We are calling on this court to exercise disciplinary jurisdiction under Section 6 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.

    “We urge this court to take disciplinary steps by immediately suspending that judgment. This court has the power to protect its own integrity. We pray this court suspends the judgment immediately without further delay.”

    The other parties also drew the attention of the appellate court panel to the fact that on June 20, INEC would conduct by-elections across six states of the federation, contending that if the judgment was not stayed, it would create problems across the country.

    They argued that the court of appeal has inherent powers to act in a supervisory capacity and not allow its orders to be disregarded by lower courts.