ADC Leadership Battle Deepens as Judge, Lawyers Clash Over Recusal Requests

…Case adjourned till June 16 for ruling on recusal request

Proceedings in the leadership dispute rocking the African Democratic Congress took a dramatic turn at the Federal High Court in Abuja as the trial judge, Justice Peter Lifu, suggested that certain persons were working to frustrate the hearing of the matter, while several parties renewed calls for his recusal from the case.

During proceedings, Justice Lifu expressed concern over a series of petitions and applications filed in connection with the suit before his court.

According to the judge, “Before the case came to my court, you had been petitioning. Some elements in this country do not want the case to go on.”

The remark came after counsel to the first defendant, S.E. Aruwa, sought leave to speak on a counsel’s attempt to withdraw an application already filed for accelerated hearing. Aruwa responded to the court’s observation by stating, “The plaintiffs are the elements.”

READ ALSO: Former ADC Reps Aspirant, Supporters Defect To APC in Kebbi

The court also heard complaints from counsel representing the fifth defendant, P.I. Oyewole, who alleged that after responding to an earlier correspondence from the Chief Judge, subsequent communication was sent to the claimant and the claimant’s counsel without copying his client.

Justice Lifu also directly addressed allegations suggesting he was acting in favour of the government.

The judge defended his record, pointing to previous decisions delivered by his court and asking, “How many of my judgments have the appellate courts overturned?”

The dispute over the judge’s continued participation in the matter formed the centrepiece of Monday’s proceedings.

The first defendant filed an application seeking an order directing Justice Lifu to recuse himself from the case, return the matter to the Chief Judge for reassignment, and grant other consequential reliefs.

Similarly, the third defendant, Reuben Okpanachi, filed a separate application seeking the judge’s withdrawal from the proceedings, alongside a preliminary objection challenging the competence of the suit and an application for an extension of time to respond to the claimant’s originating processes.

Counsel appearing for parties seeking to be joined in the suit also raised issues relating to the court’s jurisdiction to continue with the matter.

One of the applicants, through counsel Kalu Kalu Agu, urged the court to halt proceedings pending the determination of a petition filed against Justice Lifu before the National Judicial Council.

The court was informed that the petition, filed on June 1, also forms part of a separate action involving the National Judicial Council, the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, and Justice Lifu.

Responding, the judge stated that the petition was not new and would be adequately addressed.

Justice Lifu noted that the court had repeatedly listened to all parties and carefully considered what he described as the “checkered nature” of the case.

The judge disclosed that no fewer than twenty-three applications had already been filed in the matter, in addition to processes filed by the claimant.

He subsequently directed all parties seeking his recusal to argue their applications orally before the court.

Aside from the recusal motions, the court also received several other applications.

The first defendant filed motions for a stay of proceedings pending the outcome of a petition seeking reassignment of the case, an extension of time to file a counter-affidavit, and a preliminary objection challenging the suit.

The second defendant, Suleiman Usman, informed the court of applications for a mandatory injunction, constitutional reference, and an order compelling the claimant to furnish particulars, while withdrawing an earlier motion for accelerated hearing.

The third and fifth defendants also sought extensions of time and suspension of proceedings pending the outcome of petitions before the appropriate authorities.

After hearing submissions from counsel, Justice Lifu adjourned the matter until June 16, 2026, for a ruling on the recusal requests by the parties.