Justice Lifu, the NJC and Judicial Integrity 

The Advocate

By Onikepo Braithwaite

Onikepo.braithwaite@thisdaylive.com

Firstly, I would like to state categorically that my primary constituency is the legal profession (the Bar and the Bench), and it should be a cause for concern for all members when activities by some erring members of the profession, drag its reputation into the mud. 

Re: Lifu and NJC’s Inaction

What did the National Judicial Council (NJC) do to Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in June 2026, when according to the Court of Appeal, he abused court process by committing ‘judicial rascality’ because he failed to recognise or adhere to judicial hierarchy, and ordered the deregistration of ADC and four other political parties, despite an order of the Court of Appeal, staying proceedings in the case pending the determination of an interlocutory appeal in the matter, which was scheduled for October 2026? The Court of Appeal set aside his judgement, describing his conduct as the highest form of “judicial impertinence, judicial rascality, judicial indiscipline and gross insubordination”. See the case of Owoniyi v Aiyewunmi 2025 16 N.W.L.R. Part 2011 Page 237 per Habeeb Adewale Olumuyiwa Abiru, JSC which was cited by the Court of Appeal in their reprimand of Lifu, on defiance of superior court orders.

To the best of the public’s knowledge, the NJC has done nothing to Lifu J. so far. Because, had Lifu J. been punished for his judicial rascality, he may still be on suspension now, and wouldn’t be available to cause more confusion. 

I have always maintained that, the NJC cannot always wait to receive a petition, before it takes disciplinary action, at least for abuses which are done openly for all to see. In Unity Bank PLC v Tambuwal Construction & Trading Co. Ltd & Anor (2025) LPELR-80562 (SC) per Mohammed Baba Idris, JSC, the Supreme Court held thus: “Judicial notice is the cognisance taken by the Court itself of certain matters which are so notorious, or clearly established, that evidence of their existence is deemed unnecessary”. This principle of taking notice of things done publicly, could also be extended to the NJC. 

With all due respect, all that may have been required in the case of Lifu J. flouting the Court of Appeal’s order, was for the NJC to examine the judgements of the Court of Appeal and that of Lifu J. and if a prima facie case was established against him, issue him a query. In some instances, such as this, disciplinary proceedings require swift action, particularly when they concern serious matters like the ADC case, which touch on the upcoming general elections taking place in less than 90 days, especially as a means of deterring other judicial officers who may be working hand in glove with politicians, and have the penchant for causing confusion in the polity. 

Conflicting Court Order from a Sister Court

Last Thursday, in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025 Nafiu Bala Gombe v ADC & Ors per Lifu J., despite an earlier judgement of a court of coordinate jurisdiction, that is, Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1637/2025 Hon Abejide v ADC & Ors per Justice Musa Liman delivered on 2/7/2026, affirming the legitimacy of the Senator David Mark-led Committee, Lifu J. delivered his own later judgement, declaring the same Mark/Aregbesola Committee that had been previously affirmed, as illegal.

    I have not had the benefit of reading either judgement, but, some of the highlights of both cases are in the public space. One side of the argument that I have heard is that, Liman J’s d ecision isn’t binding on Lifu J., but persuasive, especially if both cases weren’t on all fours with each other. But, the other side of this argument is that, the essence of justice is to bring clarity and resolution to issues, not to cause confusion. Clarity is a precondition of fairness and equal application. The goals of civil justice, centre on dispute resolution and legal certainty. Confusion is what justice is meant to dispel. 

Even if the parties in both matters or their subject-matters aren’t exactly the same, there are some common denominators – 1) Though the Plaintiffs are different – Abejide in the first case and Gombe, in the second; the Defendants appear to be the same in both suits – ADC, INEC, Mark, Aregbesola, Nwosu; and 2) Abejide and Gombe both objected to the Mark/Aregbesola Committee, and wanted it nullified. Their reasons for seeking the nullification may have been different, but the outcome of their prayers was either of these two options – the affirmation or denial of the Mark/Aregbesola Committee. 

Additionally, though Liman J. ruled that Abejide didn’t have locus standi to institute the proceedings, he did more than decline jurisdiction, he affirmed the validity of Mark’s Committee. Could a second argument be that, once Liman J. determined that Abejide didn’t have locus and declined jurisdiction, he didn’t have the power to make any pronouncement validating the Mark/Aregbesola Committee? See Madukolu & Ors v Nkemdilim (1962) LPELR-24023(SC) on the consequences on the lack of jurisdiction.

Or, once Liman J. affirmed the Mark/Aregbesola Committee, could Gombe then have sought the leave of court to apply to be joined as an interested party in that case and appeal, since the affirmation of the Mark/Aregbesola Committee directly impacted on his own prayer? The answer is, Yes, he could have. After all, it is trite law that an order of a court remains valid, until it is set aside. See Adegbanke v Ojelabi & Ors (2021) LPELR-54992(SC) per Kudirat Motonmori Olatokunbo Kekere-Ekun, JSC (now CJN) where the Supreme Court held that “The law is settled that the judgement of any competent court, once perfected, and not appealed against, is valid and subsisting until it is set aside by competent court or authority”. In this situation, the competent court is the Court of Appeal, to where appeals from the Federal High Court lie – see Section 243(1) of the 1999 Constitution. That way, a situation in which sister courts appear to have given conflicting decisions would have been avoided, because what we are left with today, is one decision saying the Mark/Aregbesola Committee should stay, and another, saying it should go! In FAAN v Bi-Courtney Ltd & Anor (2024) LPELR-79934(SC) per Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju, JSC, the Supreme Court held that “The law is settled that only parties affected by a decision of the court may appeal against it as of right, any other interested party requires leave to appeal as such…A non-party having an interest in the matter…must first and foremost, seek leave to join and be made a party in the matter as his name did not feature in the record of proceedings”. In Re: Nigeria Customs Service Board (2022) LPELR-56659(SC) per Tijjani Abubakar, JSC, the Supreme Court held thus: “An Applicant seeking for leave of court to appeal as an interested party, must make a detailed deposition in his affidavit in support of the application to show; (a) his interest in the matter; (b) why he was not a party in the trial court; (c) good reasons for the delay in filing the application”. 

Was this a deliberate, orchestrated attempt to cause confusion, using the Gombe case? It certainly looks like it, particularly with the matter being reassigned to Lifu J. who had shown his bias by desperately ordering the deregistration of ADC and others, during the pendency of a stay of proceedings.

Furthermore, whether or not Abejide and Gombe’s cases can be distinguished, Lifu J’s pronouncement declaring the Mark/Aregbesola Committee illegal, resulted in reversing the order of a sister court, more or less appearing as if Lifu J. had sat as an appeal court over the judgement of Liman J. of the same court! In Edo State House of Assembly & Ors v Agbebaku (2018) LPELR-45056(CA) per Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju, JCA (as she then was), the Court of Appeal held inter alia that: “The general position of the law is that, a court cannot set aside its decision, or the decision of a court of coordinate jurisdiction made on the merits”. Lifu J. then went on to make orders restraining Mark and Rauf Aregbesola from parading themselves as National Chairman and National Secretary of the ADC respectively, when Liman J. had directed INEC to recognise them. Lifu also nullified their actions, including the party’s primary that produced Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, GCON, as the ADC Presidential Candidate. 

Lifu J’s actions have reflected badly on the Judiciary; if anything, they seem to have dented its reputation, as he literally threw caution to the wind, descended into the arena and was emboldened, since he suffered no consequences for his previous action of judicial rascality.

No doubt, Senator David Mark and his co-Defendants must have  lodged their appeal against Lifu J’s judgement by now, and applied for a stay of execution of the judgement, pending the outcome of the appeal.

Judicial Bias and Forum Shopping 

The truth is that Lifu J. appears to be biased, against those whom he has been ruling against. In Rafiu Womiloju & Ors v Fatai Ogisanyin-Anibire & Ors (2010) LPELR-3503 (SC) per Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad, JSC (later CJN) the Supreme Court held that  “When a Judge appears to give more favour or consideration to one of the parties before him, either in his utterances, attention or actions, which is capable of perverting the cause of justice, or where fair hearing cannot be said to take place, all in favour of the party he supports covertly or overtly, then an allegation of bias against him can be grounded. That of course is a Judicial bias”. In the case of Lifu J,  he appears to have defied the doctrine of judicial hierarchy, precedent, and the rule against setting aside the decision of a court coordinate jurisdiction, to decide against the Mark/Aregbesola Committee and their ADC, come hell or high water! 

From the information available, there is also an allegation of forum shopping against Gombe, which is also an abuse of court process. See the case of Mailantarki v Tongo & Ors (2017) LPELR-42467(SC) per Ejembi Eko, JSC, where the Supreme Court held that “forum shopping is a specie of abuse of judicial process: Forum shopping denotes a rather reprehensible practice of choosing the most favourable territorial jurisdiction or court, in which a matter or cause may be entertained and adjudicated upon”.

Gombe’s suit was originally before Justice Emeka Nwite. After the Supreme Court in related proceedings, set aside the Court of Appeal’s status-quo order and directed an accelerated hearing, Gombe petitioned the FHC Chief Judge (CJ) for reassignment of the case, citing loss of confidence in Nwite J. It was reassigned to Lifu J – see Mailantarki v Tongo & Ors (Supra). That, in itself, wasn’t just wrong, but showed some deliberate collusion on the part of the FHC CJ and Lifu J. Seeing as the Court of Appeal had already openly rebuked Lifu J. for judicial rascality in the deregistration case involving ADC, the CJ shouldn’t have assigned any ADC-related matter like Gombe’s case, to Lifu J. This is where allegations of connivance, bias, and wanting to cause confusion may gain ground. If at all, the matter should have been assigned to a neutral third party. 

The Defendants had also applied for recusal of Lifu J. on grounds of bias; Lifu J. dismissed the application, even ordering costs against them. This points to a denial of the Defendants’ right to fair hearing, contrary to Section 36(1) of the Constitution, and smacks of partiality in favour of Gombe. If Gombe’s application for reassignment was granted, it is only fair that that of the Defendants, be also granted. After all, what is good for the goose, is good for the gander!

Effects of Bad Behaviour 

Can we simply sit back, and let judicial officers and legal practitioners who may be in cahoots with politicians who practice ‘by any means necessary’ or ‘the end justifies the means’, ruin the reputation of the Judiciary and the legal profession, and destroy these institutions? The core effects of tolerating this kind of abusive practice is that, it erodes the rule of law; undermines democracy; encourages corruption and impunity; has dire economic consequences, as it chases away both local and foreign investors, and diminishes public trust in the Judiciary, which ordinarily, should be the last hope of the common man.

Conclusion 

The repeated pattern of disregard for superior orders, coordinate-jurisdiction principles, and the doctrine of judicial hierarchy, cannot be dismissed as isolated error. When a Judge who has already been publicly reprimanded by the Court of Appeal for judicial rascality, is permitted to deliver a second judgement in a related matter that effectively nullifies the decision of a sister court, the damage extends far beyond the parties before him. It signals that there may be no real consequences, for judicial indiscipline.

The NJC has a constitutional responsibility, to protect the integrity of the Judiciary. Publicly available facts – the Court of Appeal’s findings in the deregistration matter, the existence of two conflicting FHC judgements on the Mark-led ADC leadership, the reassignment controversy, and the proximity of the 2027 elections –  furnish a sufficient basis for the NJC to examine the conduct of Lifu J., without waiting for a fresh petition that may itself be delayed or discontinued. Failure to act in a matter this visible and this consequential, does not merely leave one Judge unaccountable; it erodes the very hierarchy and discipline upon which the entire judicial system rests.

A Judiciary that appears to tolerate such conduct, is perceived to be one that isn’t a reliable guardian of the rule of law. In an election season, that failure carries a direct cost to democratic stability. The institutions charged with judicial discipline must either assert themselves now, or accept that the public will increasingly view conflicting court orders not as aberrations, but as features of a system that no longer polices its own.

Already, with the issues in its appeal process, the LPDC which is responsible for the discipline of Lawyers, resembles a dog that barks, but has no bite. Haba!