Court Fixes March 24 for Definite Hearing in Suit Seeking to Deregister ADC, Others 

Alex Enumah in Abuja 

Justice Peter Lifu of a Federal High Court, Abuja, has fixed March 24, for a definite hearing in the suit seeking to deregister the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Accord Party, Action People’s Party (APP), Zenith Labour Party (ZLP) and Action Alliance (AA), over alleged non-compliance with constitutional requirements.

Lifu took the decision shortly after all parties regularised their processes in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/2637/25.

The plaintiff, Incorporated Trustees of the National Forum of Former Legislators (NFFL), had dragged the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), and the affected political parties before the court, seeking an order of the court compelling INEC to deregister the above mentioned party.

The initial originating summons had only the ADC as the political party targeted for deregistration but was subsequently amended to include the four others whose continued existence were said to have constituted a breach of the Constitution. 

At Tuesday’s proceedings, various lawyers announced appearance for the political parties involved except Action Alliance (AA), which has two different legal practitioners from different law firms representing it.  

The two lawyers claiming representations for AA and who stood their grounds on legitimacy were Ibrahim Yakubu and Bello Lukman. 

In the drama that ensued, the presiding judge, asked the counsel whether they were together, to which both confirmed they had separate letters of instruction.

Lifu directed them to reconcile, warning that the court would “do the needful” if they failed to put their house in order. 

In another development, Counsel to Accord Party, Mr Musibau Adetunbi SAN moved an application praying for an order of the court to file further counter affidavit against joining the party in the de-registration battle. 

Adetunbi, SAN, argued that the further counter affidavit was necessary to accommodate some salient facts omitted in the earlier one. 

His motion brought pursuant to Order 26 Rule 1 and Order 66 Rule 8 was predicated on 7 grounds. 

The Accord party lawyer pleaded with the court to allow the further counter affidavit in the interest of justice and to assist the court in arriving at a just conclusion. 

The move was however opposed by the plaintiff who insisted that further counter affidavit was not necessary because no new fact was introduced in the amended originating summons. 

Yakubu Ruba, SAN who argued for the plaintiff insisted that the application to file further counter affidavit was incompetent and unknown to law since no new facts were introduced and urged the judge to decline granting the request. 

Besides, Ruba informed the court of an application to amend the originating summons, dated January 28 and which had been filed and served on all parties. 

Respondents, through their respective lawyers confirmed receipt and that they had filed counter affidavits. 

Counsel for some respondents, including S.E. Aruwa SAN, applied for extension of time to regularise processes and also brought a motion on notice challenging the court’s jurisdiction. 

After hearing arguments, Justice Lifu granted the motion for extension of time as prayed and deemed the plaintiff’s reply on points of law properly filed. 

The court thereafter adjourned to March 24 for hearing.