Get Guardian on GoogleThe African Democratic Congress (ADC) Presidential Campaign Council has raised concerns over the reassignment of a case previously handled by Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court to Justice Peter Lifu, alleging that the transfer raises questions about judicial impartiality.
The council accused the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho, of disregarding its formal protest against the reassignment, claiming that the case was transferred to Justice Lifu a day after the party submitted its objection.
This was contained in a statement issued on Tuesday and signed by the Director of Strategic Communications of the ADC Presidential Campaign Council, Phrank Shaibu.
Shaibu said the party’s legal team had taken the matter before the Court of Appeal, adding that the council was also making public documents detailing the circumstances surrounding the reassignment.
“Our lawyers have taken the legal questions before the esteemed justices of the Court of Appeal. We respect their authority to decide them. We also come before the court of public opinion with the documents that show how this case reached Justice Lifu. Nigerians deserve to know why Justice Nwite was prevented from concluding a case he had already begun hearing,” he said.
The council demanded the immediate release of the full judgment in the matter, insisting that the ADC should be provided with an official copy and the reasons behind the decision to enable it to pursue appropriate legal remedies.
It argued that withholding the judgment could impede its right to challenge the decision and deny the appellate court access to the complete record of proceedings.
According to the statement, the plaintiff had sought the transfer of the case from Justice Nwite on grounds of delay and alleged loss of confidence in securing a timely hearing.
However, the ADC maintained that Justice Nwite had neither recused himself nor ceased to be a serving judge, stressing that the matter was already before him.
The campaign council said its lawyers responded to the plaintiff’s request on May 11, 2026, disputing the allegations of delay and presenting records of previous adjournments.
It added that the legal team also questioned the circumstances surrounding the request, describing it as an attempt at forum shopping.
The statement further disclosed that the ADC National Secretary, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, wrote to Justice Tsoho on June 2, 2026, urging him to reverse the reassignment.
According to the council, the letter formally protested the transfer and expressed the party’s lack of confidence in Justice Lifu’s impartiality.
However, it alleged that Justice Tsoho proceeded to assign the case to Justice Lifu on June 3, a development it said raised questions about why its objections were not considered.
The council called on the Chief Judge to make public the reasons for approving the transfer, arguing that the sequence of events had created an appearance of bias.
It also cited a separate case involving Justice Lifu, who reportedly ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister the ADC and four other political parties despite an earlier Court of Appeal order staying proceedings.
The campaign council said the appellate court subsequently criticised the decision to proceed with the matter, describing it as the “highest form of judicial impertinence” and invoking the expression “judicial rascality” before nullifying the deregistration judgment.
The ADC also referred to a certified judgment delivered by Justice Musa Liman, which dismissed a challenge to the party’s leadership for lacking merit and locus standi.
According to the statement, Justice Liman held that the internal leadership dispute was non-justiciable, upheld the legality of the leadership handover and affirmed INEC’s recognition of the party’s National Chairman and National Secretary.
The council argued that Justice Lifu, sitting at the same Federal High Court, could not disregard the earlier judgment, describing the issue as one of the legal questions now before the Court of Appeal.
In a separate allegation, the ADC raised concerns over reported inquiries involving Justice Tsoho, including an alleged Code of Conduct Bureau investigation over undeclared bank accounts.
It also referred to media reports alleging that a substantial amount of cash was found in the possession of the Chief Judge’s wife, while acknowledging that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) had not publicly confirmed the report.
The council, however, stressed that the allegations did not establish guilt, but urged Justice Tsoho to publicly explain the circumstances surrounding the reassignment and address concerns about possible external influence.
It maintained that the ADC’s right to a fair hearing should not be compromised by any controversy involving judicial officers.
The campaign council also called on the National Judicial Council (NJC) to investigate the reassignment, the formal protest submitted to the Chief Judge and Justice Lifu’s handling of the earlier proceedings involving the party.
It warned against the use of judicial processes as instruments of political competition, urging the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) to confront the ADC and its presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, through the political process rather than court manoeuvres.
The council further invoked Nigeria’s First and Second Republics, cautioning judicial officers against decisions that could undermine public confidence in the judiciary and deepen political instability.
Reaffirming Atiku Abubakar as its presidential candidate, the ADC said it would continue to defend its position before the Court of Appeal, insisting that Nigerians’ right to choose their leaders must not be compromised by political interests.
