Justice Lifu, Appeal Court and NJC, by Tonnie Iredia

For the benefit of those who have not quite followed the story of Justice Peter Odo Lifu, this article begins by restating the highlights of the relevant events. In June 2026, the said Justice Lifu of the Federal High Court, Abuja ordered INEC to deregister five political parties namely: Africa Democratic Congress, Action Peoples Party, Accord Party, Action Alliance, and Zenith Labour Party.

Unfortunately, the Court of Appeal had ordered a stay of proceedings on the matter about a month earlier, but Lifu ignored the order and went ahead to deliver judgment. On appeal, the Court of Appeal found a huge space to take the high court judge to the cleaners. It did not only set aside Lifu’s judgment, it used the harshest rebuke in recent times on the judge.

In the words of the judges of the Court of Appeal, Lifu’s conduct was ‘the highest form of judicial impertinence’, ‘judicial rascality’, ‘judicial indiscipline and gross insubordination’ and ‘a brazen violation of the hierarchy of the court and the 1999 Constitution.’ As if to establish that it was not doing anything new, the court recalled the Supreme Court’s precedent where the apex court had held that a judge who deliberately disregards the order of a superior court is ‘unfit for the bench.’ Many commentators agreed with the condemnation of Lifu because he wrongly assumed jurisdiction to act on a suit filed by a body without legal capacity.

Lifu also didn’t even get the facts of the case right as he ordered the deregistration of parties which did not fail the test of registration. At this point where everyone is up against Justice Lifu, I consider it necessary to draw attention to the fact that the anti-Lifu posture does not tell the entire story. Although I can’t clap for Lifu, I have searched in vain for what can encourage me to clap for the Court of Appeal either.

Indeed, being the higher court with judges of greater professional experience, I am not persuaded that the Court of Appeal did better or was in any way right in openly castigating and publicly rebuking an erring judge. It would have been better for the entire judiciary if the Court had just overturned the verdict without abusing the person of the judge.

In addition to not adding any judicial value to the reversal of the earlier verdict, the abuse only derogated from the image of the judiciary. Instead of sending an internal report to the NJC, the Appeal Court created a problem for the entire judiciary by using strong terms on a judge thereby prompting Nigerians to expect his removal within minutes.

Months after, the removal didn’t happen. Lifu is not only still there; he has since done more harm as far as many members of the public are concerned. In fact, two days after the NJC axed other erring judges, Justice Lifu delivered a second controversial judgment nullifying the ADC primary election and reinstating a factional leadership. This establishes clearly that the damaging words on Lifu were superfluous.

The point to be made is that the Court of Appeal was right to set aside the Lifu judgment. It was also right to insist on hierarchy, but was wrong to communicate that insistence through personal condemnation. Perhaps our Court of Appeal should emulate courts in other climes. In the UK for instance, the Supreme Court, in R (Miller) v. Secretary of State for Exiting the EU UKSC 5, overturned a decision of the Divisional Court on a matter of weighty constitutional importance, without a single personal adjective directed at the lower court or the judge in person.

In Nigeria, the Court of Appeal which has no power to remove a judge attempted to pre-empt the National Judicial Council (NJC) that has the mandate to discipline judges. The situation now is that the said unfit Lifu is still in office; and the powerful judges of the Court of Appeal have been ignored while our sleeping NJC has continued snoring heavily leaving many people to create several theories on the NJC’s posture.

My standpoint today is supported by the fact that under the Constitution and the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers, all judges are bound by the same rules. Two of those rules which are relevant here are i) A judge must be temperate, courteous, and restrained in language, even when criticising a lower court, ii) A judge must not make unnecessary personal attacks that bring the judiciary into disrepute.

In line with these rules, one can say without any fear of contradiction that a higher court that insults lower courts but refuses to police its own tone and diction stands the risk of losing moral authority. It would appear therefore that the breach of the above rules on temperate language is responsible for why the NJC is over sleeping. Otherwise, the noise that has been made about Justice Lifu is strong enough to wake up the dead.

Surprisingly, in spite of formal protests by parties and other groups which see Lifu as a tool for judicial partisanship, the latest move by the NJC in which it disciplined 9 judicial officers,