Justice Peter Odo Lifu of the Federal High Court, Abuja was far less known until June 15, 2026 when an ill-considered judgement he delivered led to political eruption in the country. It was capable of derailing the political process and, several persons and organisations including the judiciary, scrambled to douse the fires its was beginning to ignite. Not since the country’s return to the democratic path twenty six years ago, has a judgement attracted this much opprobrium with no known body including its possible beneficiaries, raising a voice in support.
My mind raced back to British jurist, Lord Denning who famously declared in 1964: “Justice has no place in darkness or secrecy. When a judge sits on a case, he himself is on trial… If he is suspicious, biased, or unfair, then the judge is the one who is condemned in the eyes of public opinion.” But these words of wisdom seem not to have any meaning to Justice Lifu, shockingly, a former lecturer of Public and International Law, University of Ibadan. For me, what was more distressing was that despite the uproar, Justice Lifu seemed oblivious of the damage he had done to the body polity, the judiciary and his thirty five years post-call to bar history.
The main issues are that Justice Lifu, one way or the other, was handling controversial legal cases of political parties. In the specific case of the African Democratic Party, ADC, its National Welfare Secretary, Nkem Ukandu on June 5, 2026, filed a suit and formal petition against Justice Lifu and the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho accusing them of abusing their judicial powers and ignoring the Supreme Court. Also, the party’s National Secretary, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola filed a a motion, asking Justice Lifu to recuse himself from the party’s leadership case.
Ten days later, that is on Monday June 15, 2026, the judge sat to pronounce judgement on another case involving the ADC. This particular one was demanding the de-registration of the ADC and four other political parties; Accord Party, Action Alliance, AA, Action Peoples’ Party, APP, and the Zenith Labour Party, ZLP. This was shocking because on May 22, 2026, that is twenty four days earlier, the Court of Appeal had ordered a stay of proceedings in this suit. This had been filed before Justice Lifu and brought to his attention in open court. So, he was aware of the Appeal Court’s ruling but, decided to overrule the superior court. In the specific case of the ADC which appears to be the target of the judicial attack, the party met the constitutional provisions of registration including Section 225A which states that a political party should either win 25 per cent of the votes cast in a State or, a seat in the Senate, House of Representatives, State House of Assembly or a councilor. In the 2023 General Elections, Honourable Leke Abejide of the ADC won the Yagba East/Yagba West / Mopa-muro Federal Constituency. Subsequently, a number of Senators and Members of the Federal House of Representatives decamped to the ADC.
So, if law is based on facts and evidence and not judicial contrivance, there was no basis for him to deregister the party. Besides, the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, the constitutional body empowered to register or deregister political parties, had stated in court that the five political parties met the constitutional provisions of registration and that there was no basis to deregister them. But Justice Lifu for yet unexplained reasons, apparently did not base his judgement on evidence, facts, constitutional provisions, the INEC position nor, recognize the powers of the Court of Appeal arresting his judgement.
The next day after he had pronounced the ADC dead, the same Justice Lifu sat over the leadership case of the party. The joke was on him; presiding over a political party he had pronounced ‘dead’ and asking it and, its National Secretary to pay fines. Only in Justice Lifu’s court can a dead party be asked to pay a fine. When this joke was being played out in his court, he seemed too daft to comprehend what the lawyer, Kalu-Kalu Agu was doing. As Justice Lifu sat to give his new ruling on the ADC, the lawyer cheekily told him: “My lord, the clerk of this court did mention the matter is slated for a ruling today. In view of your lordship’s ruling and the continuous existence of the 1st defendant (ADC) in this matter, and having been declared dead, I don’t see any reason why this ruling should continue. In your judgment, this court ordered INEC to deregister the 1st defendant. So in the eye of the law, the 1st defendant is not existing.” Justice Lifu did not catch the sarcasm in Agu’s submission. Rather, he asked: “Are you a party in this suit?” “Yes, I am my lord” “Who joined you, or did you join yourself in your chambers?” He subsequently, threatened to invoke the powers of the court on the lawyer.
That same Tuesday, June 16, 2026, a miffed Court of Appeal moved quickly to rescue the judicial institution from Justice Lifu. In reversing his judgement, it lambasted him for defying its order suspending further proceedings and judgement on the political parties de-registration case. It described Justice Lifu’s violation of its order as a: “brazen violation of the hierarchy of the court and the 1999 Constitution”. It further described his actions as: “the highest form of judicial impertinence (and) judicial rascality” making him unfit to be a judge. The Court of Appeal pronouncement from the bench, stripped Justice Lifu of his integrity and derobed him in public, so that although he sat robed in the chambers, he is naked before the public. It is very rare for the judiciary to come down heavily on a judge. But apart from doing so to save the institution, the Court of Appeal ruling might also have had the effect of arresting Justice Lifu’s free fall into anarchism like a drunken sailor falling off the deck of a ship. It led Lifu out like, it would, a bull in a china shop.
Indeed, the court is supposed to be a temple of justice; an institution where those in search of equity and fairness can head. Judges are the Chief Priests of the temple and the arbiters amongst the people; interpreters of the law or constitution and dispensers of justice. But where the judge becomes the issue, rather than the justice he is expected to dispense, the judicial institution is threatened and its integrity called to question. Ordinarily, Justice Lifu should take a bow from the bench and save the institution further embarrassment. But if he does not, the judiciary should show him the exit.
