Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja has refused to step down from hearing the African Democratic Congress (ADC) leadership dispute, dismissing two applications filed by the party and its National Secretary, Rauf Aregbesola. The judge ruled on Tuesday that the applications lacked merit, were unsupported by credible evidence, and amounted to an abuse of court process. The suit, originally filed by aggrieved party member Nafiu-Bala Gombe, challenges the legitimacy of Senator David Mark's leadership of the ADC. It was reassigned to Justice Lifu earlier this month after the Supreme Court ordered an accelerated trial, following its initial hearing by Justice Emeka Nwite.
The ADC and Aregbesola had separately petitioned for Justice Lifu's recusal, alleging bias and requesting either reassignment of the case or a stay of proceedings. After hearing submissions, the judge rejected the claims, stating the affidavits presented were speculative and failed to prove any actual bias. "There is no element of bias being painted by the applicants as alleged," Justice Lifu declared. He described the motions as "a cheap attempt to blackmail and intimidate the court" and accused the applicants of forum shopping to secure a favourable judge. He emphasized that litigants cannot dictate which judge presides over their case, as assignments are made by the Chief Judge.
The judge also warned that granting such applications without evidence would set a dangerous precedent, enabling lawyers to manipulate judicial assignments. Each applicant was ordered to pay N500,000 in costs to the plaintiff. The case has been adjourned to June 23 for the hearing of pending motions.
Justice Lifu accuses the ADC and its secretary of trying to handpick a favourable judge while citing court integrity, yet the party's challenge stems from a Supreme Court-ordered retrial. The same institution now resisting recusal was previously replaced to ensure fairness in the very same case. If reassignment was deemed necessary once, the current resistance to change raises questions about consistency. Nafiu-Bala Gombe's case continues amid a judicial process that both sides claim must be shielded from manipulation.
Editorial note: AI-assisted opinion, not established fact. Full disclaimer →
