The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has secured a major legal reprieve after the Court of Appeal halted the enforcement of a Federal High Court judgment that ordered the party’s deregistration alongside four other political parties. The appellate court also strongly criticised the lower court for proceeding with its ruling despite an earlier order directing a stay of proceedings.
ADC National Chairman, Senator David Mark, reacted to the development by declaring that the judiciary not the opposition party is now under public scrutiny. He warned against what he described as attempts to manipulate democratic institutions and insisted that the credibility of the nation’s judicial system was at stake.
Mark questioned the actions of Justice Peter Lifu, whose court had ordered the deregistration of the ADC, Accord Party, Action Alliance, Action Peoples Party and Zenith Labour Party. The former Senate President argued that it was difficult to understand how a judge could proceed with a judgment after the Court of Appeal had ordered a halt to proceedings in the matter.
The Court of Appeal, in a unanimous decision, described the lower court’s action as a violation of judicial hierarchy and granted a stay of execution, ensuring that the affected political parties remain legally recognised pending the determination of the appeal. INEC also supported the application for a stay, revealing that it only learned of the controversial judgment through media reports.
Despite the legal battle, Mark urged ADC members to remain calm and focused, expressing confidence that the party would emerge stronger. He further accused the ruling APC-led government of attempting to distract and weaken opposition forces ahead of future elections, while maintaining that such efforts would not derail the ADC’s political ambitions.
The ruling has sparked wider calls for the National Judicial Council to investigate the circumstances surrounding the judgment, with several political stakeholders and civil society groups arguing that the controversy raises serious concerns about judicial accountability and public trust in the courts.
