Judge Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday imposed a fine of N500,000 each on the African Democratic Congress (ADC) and its interim National Secretary, Rauf Aregbesola, over their application seeking his withdrawal from a suit that centres on the leadership dispute within the party.
Mr Lifu imposed the fine in a ruling on a recusal application filed by the ADC and Mr Aregbesola, a former governor of Osun State and ex-minister of interior.
|
|
PREMIUM TIMES reported that the ADC and Mr Aregbesola, on 8 June, asked the judge to withdraw from a suit concerning the party’s leadership dispute.
They accused the judge of bias and urged him to transfer the case to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court for reassignment to another judge.
|
|
|
|---|
The suit was filed by Nafiu-Bala Gombe, a member of the ADC who claims to be the authentic chair of the party.
In the suit, Mr Gombe sued the ADC, the party’s interim national chairperson, David Mark; interim national secretary, Mr Aregbesola; the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC); and Ralph Nwosu.
Mr Gombe, an official of the party before recent defections changed its leadership structure, is challenging the emergence of Mr Mark and Mr Aregbesola as national chairman and national secretary. He argues that their appointments violate the party’s constitution.
He asked the court to nullify their appointments and restrain them from parading themselves as party leaders.
Mr Gombe opposed the recusal applications and urged the court to continue hearing the matter.
The case, first before Judge Emeka Nwite of the same court, went to the Supreme Court and later returned to the Federal High Court, where it was reassigned to Judge Lifu.
Ruling on recusal motion
Delivering the ruling on Tuesday, Mr Lifu held that the motions lacked merit and contained no credible evidence of bias or frustrating the Supreme Court order for accelerated hearing.
He held that the reasons advanced in the affidavits were extraneous.
“This court has carefully considered all processes filed by the parties. There is no iota of bias,” the judge ruled.
The judge noted that the recusal motions were filed even before the court fully assumed jurisdiction in the matter.
“Where then is the element of bias in the motions for recusal?”
He described the applications as an abuse of court process and held that they were fundamentally defective.
“The law is settled that allegations of bias are grave allegations,” he said “Whoever alleges bias must provide clear evidence.”
He also noted that the applicants failed to prove their claims and described it as an attempt to blackmail and intimidate the court.
“As I said, nobody can intimidate the court,” he said.
The judge maintained that courts must not grant baseless recusal requests to avoid allowing litigants to choose preferred judges.
He also described the applications as forum shopping.
He alleged that the applicants filed the motions to move the case to a judge they expected to favour their position. “Parties cannot choose the court that hears their case,” he said.
He added that case assignment rests with court administrators, not litigants and added that “A judge must be firm in doing justice and not dance to the whims and caprices of counsel,”
He warned that accepting such applications without evidence could encourage abuse of process, while granting the application would set a dangerous precedent.
On that basis, he dismissed the application and imposed a N500,000 cost on each applicant in favour of the plaintiff.
Challenge over earlier ruling
Earlier, Kalu-Kalu Agu, a lawyer to Nkemakolam Ukandu, who is the ADC National Welfare Secretary of the party,
challenged the judge not to deliver the ruling.
Mr Ukandu, who earlier filed an application for joinder through his lawyer, referenced the judge’s earlier decision on Monday involving an order that affected the ADC.
He noted that the court had yet to grant his joinder application to enable him to be joined as a party to the suit.
PREMIUM TIMES also reported that the judge, Mr Lifu, on Monday, ordered the deregistration of the ADC and four other parties for alleged breach of Section 225 of the Constitution and directed INEC to act accordingly.
Mr Agu argued that the ruling affected the existence of the party and questioned the continuation of proceedings.
“In view of your lordship’s ruling and the continued existence of the 1st defendant, which has been declared dead, I do not see why this ruling should continue,” he said.
He argued that the ADC no longer existed in law following the earlier decision.
The judge then asked Mr Agu whether he was a party in the suit. Mr Agu replied that he was.
The judge further questioned his standing in the matter and whether he had been formally joined.
Mr Gombe’s lawyer, Robert Emukpoeruo, a SAN, opposed the submission and said he had not seen the ruling referenced by Mr Agu.
READ ALSO: ADC: Okonkwo kicks against Amaechi’s choice as Atiku’s running mate
He argued that the application for joinder had not been granted.
He relied on Order 9 Rule 14(4) of the court’s rules and maintained that Mr Ukandu remained a non-party until properly joined.
When Mr Agu attempted to respond, the judge cautioned him against further interruption.
Lawyers for Mr Aregbesola, Mr Mark and Mr Nwosu also made submissions during the proceedings.
In his ruling, Mr Lifu held that the matter was distinct from the one in which judgement was delivered on Monday.
He adjourned the case until 23 June for hearing of all pending applications.
Discover more from Premium Times Nigeria
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
