Anarchism Within the Judiciary, by Owei Lakemfa

Justice Peter Odo Lifu of the Federal High Court, Abuja, was relatively unknown until June 15, 2026, when an ill‑considered judgment he delivered sparked a political eruption across the country. The ruling threatened to derail the political process, prompting the judiciary and other organisations to act swiftly to quell the ensuing unrest. Since the country’s return to democratic rule twenty‑six years ago, no judgment has attracted such widespread condemnation, with no clear beneficiary or body raising support for the decision.

My mind returned to the words of British jurist Lord Denning, who in 1964 declared, “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.” These words appear to have had little resonance with Justice Lifu, a former lecturer in Public and International Law at the University of Ibadan. What is more distressing is that despite the uproar, Justice Lifu seemed unaware of the damage he had inflicted upon the polity, the judiciary, and his thirty‑five‑year legal career.

The core issue is that Justice Lifu was handling controversial cases involving political parties. On June 5, 2026, Nkem Ukandu, National Welfare Secretary of the African Democratic Party (ADC), filed a suit and formal petition against Justice Lifu and Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho, accusing them of abusing their judicial powers and ignoring the Supreme Court. The party’s National Secretary, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, also filed a motion requesting that Justice Lifu recuse himself from the party’s leadership case.

Ten days later, on Monday, June 15, 2026, the judge pronounced a judgment on another ADC case demanding the de‑registration of the ADC and four other political parties: Accord Party, Action Alliance (AA), Action Peoples’ Party (APP), and Zenith Labour Party (ZLP). This was shocking because on May 22, 2026—twenty‑four days earlier—the Court of Appeal had ordered a stay of proceedings in the suit. The Court of Appeal’s ruling had been presented to Justice Lifu in open court, yet he chose to overrule the superior court. In the ADC case, the party had met the constitutional registration requirements, including Section 225A, which requires a party to win 25 percent of the votes cast in a state or secure a seat in the Senate, House of Representatives, State House of Assembly, or a councilor position. In the 2023 General Elections, Honourable Leke Abejide of the ADC won the Yagba East/Yagba West/Mopa‑muro Federal Constituency, and several Senators and Members of the Federal House of Representatives subsequently joined the ADC.

Had the law been based on facts and evidence rather than judicial contrivance, there would have been no basis for deregistering the party. The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the constitutional body empowered to register or deregister political parties, had stated in court that the five parties met the constitutional provisions and that there was no basis for deregistration. Yet Justice Lifu, for reasons that remain unclear, did not base his judgment on evidence, facts, constitutional provisions, the INEC position, or the Court of Appeal’s authority.

On the day after he pronounced the ADC “dead,” Justice Lifu presided over the party’s leadership case. He instructed the party and its National Secretary to pay fines, a request that seemed absurd given the party’s declared dissolution. During the proceedings, lawyer Kalu‑Kalu Agu remarked, “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 recognize the sarcasm and instead asked, “Are you a party in this suit?” “Yes, I am my lord,” Agu replied. He then threatened to invoke the court’s powers against the lawyer.

That same Tuesday, June 16, 2026, the Court of Appeal moved quickly to protect the judiciary’s integrity. It reversed Justice Lifu’s judgment and condemned him for defying its order, suspending further proceedings and judgment on the political parties’ de‑registration case. The Court described his violation of its order as a “brazen violation of the hierarchy of the court and the 1999 Constitution” and his actions as “the highest form of judicial impertinence (and) judicial rascality,” deeming him unfit to serve as a judge. The Court’s pronouncement stripped Justice Lifu of his integrity in public, exposing him as “naked” before the public. Such a severe rebuke of a judge is rare, but it may have prevented Justice Lifu’s descent into what the Court described as “anarchism.”

The judiciary is intended to be a temple of justice, an institution where those seeking equity and fairness can turn. Judges are the chief priests of the temple, interpreters of the law or constitution, and dispensers of justice. When a judge becomes the problem rather than the justice he is meant to dispense, the institution’s integrity is called into question. Ordinarily, Justice Lifu should have stepped down from the bench to protect the institution from further embarrassment. If he does not, the judiciary must show him the exit.

The post Anarchism in judicial robes, by Owei Lakemfa appeared first on Vanguard News.