- Court Reserves Ruling on Recusal Requests
THE LEADERSHIP crisis within the African Democratic Congress (ADC) took a fresh turn on Monday as parties in the ongoing legal battle over the party’s leadership structure clashed before the Federal High Court in Abuja over allegations of attempts to frustrate proceedings, while the plaintiff, Mr Nafiu-Bala Gombe, opposed applications seeking the recusal of the presiding judge, Justice Peter Lifu.
At the resumed hearing, Gombe’s lead counsel, Lukman Fagbemi, SAN, urged the court to dismiss separate motions filed by the ADC and the party’s National Secretary, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, seeking Justice Lifu’s withdrawal from the case. He argued that the applicants had failed to provide any credible evidence capable of justifying the judge’s recusal.
Fagbemi further asked the court to discountenance a similar application filed by Mr Nkemakolam Ukandu, the ADC’s National Welfare Secretary, who is seeking to be joined as a party in the suit.
According to the plaintiff’s legal team, counter-affidavits had been filed in response to all applications seeking the judge’s withdrawal. In the affidavits, deposed to by Gombe, the plaintiff maintained that there was no basis for alleging bias against Justice Lifu.
Gombe noted that the matter was previously before Justice Emeka Nwite and had only recently been reassigned to Justice Lifu.
He argued that, at the time the recusal applications and related petition were filed, the judge had not heard any application, taken evidence, delivered a ruling, or expressed any opinion in the matter that could reasonably suggest bias.
“There exists no act, conduct, statement or decision of Honourable Justice Peter O. Lifu in relation to this suit capable of giving rise to any reasonable apprehension of bias,” the plaintiff stated in his affidavit.
He further contended that another suit allegedly cited by the defendants as the basis for their concerns was separate and distinct from the present case. According to him, the existence of a petition against a judge, without supporting facts, could not establish actual or perceived bias.
Gombe also argued that the defendants had failed to demonstrate that Justice Lifu had any personal interest in the matter or had conducted himself in a manner that suggested partiality. He described claims that the defendants could not obtain justice before the court as speculative, premature and unsupported by evidence.
Earlier, counsel to the ADC, Shaibu Aruwa, SAN, while moving the party’s motion filed on June 2, prayed the court to order Justice Lifu’s withdrawal from the case and return the file to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court for reassignment.
Similarly, counsel to Aregbesola, Realwan Okpanachi, urged the court to grant a separate recusal application dated June 1 and filed on June 2.
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), however, distanced itself from the recusal requests. Counsel to the electoral body, Adamu Bello, informed the court that INEC neither filed nor supported any application seeking the judge’s withdrawal.
Ukandu’s counsel, Kalu-Kalu Agu, also sought an order staying proceedings pending the determination of a petition filed against Justice Lifu and the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, as well as a separate suit instituted against the National Judicial Council (NJC), the Chief Judge and Justice Lifu. He claimed his client believed he would not receive justice if proceedings continued.
When informed that the petition was filed on June 2, Justice Lifu expressed surprise that such a petition had been lodged before his court had even assumed substantive jurisdiction over the matter.
In a brief ruling, the judge declined to entertain Ukandu’s application, holding that he was not yet a party to the suit because his joinder application had not been heard.
“I cannot hear a prospective joinder who is not a party in the suit,” Justice Lifu ruled.
The proceedings also witnessed a sharp disagreement among counsel over allegations that certain parties were deliberately attempting to delay the hearing of the substantive suit.
The exchange followed an observation by Justice Lifu that the court had noticed indications that “some elements do not want the case to go on.”
Responding, Aruwa suggested that the plaintiff was responsible for the delays, telling the court that he could identify those allegedly frustrating the proceedings.
However, Gombe’s counsel, Robert Emukpoeruo, SAN, strongly rejected the allegation and accused the defendants of employing tactics designed to slow down the case. He argued that following a Supreme Court judgment directing an accelerated hearing of the matter, the defendants had continued filing multiple applications, including motions for recusal, while also serving court processes late.
According to him, any attempt to undermine the Supreme Court’s directive for an expedited hearing amounted to an abuse of court process.
“There is a clear calculated attempt by the defence to frustrate the case,” Emukpoeruo submitted, adding that it was convenient for the defendants to accuse the plaintiff of causing delays.
Okpanachi, representing Aregbesola, countered that it was Gombe who had failed to comply with the Supreme Court’s directive. He argued that after the apex court ordered parties to return to the trial court for accelerated hearing, the plaintiff wrote to the Chief Judge requesting that the matter be transferred from the previous trial judge, Justice Emeka Nwite.
Counsel to former ADC National Chairman, Chief Ralph Nwosu, Peter Oyewole, and Ukandu’s lawyer, Agu, also disagreed with the plaintiff’s allegations, insisting that the defence had not engaged in delay tactics. Agu further called on Emukpoeruo to withdraw his remarks.
The substantive suit stems from Gombe’s challenge to the emergence of former Senate President David Mark as National Chairman of the ADC and Aregbesola as National Secretary. Gombe is seeking an order restraining the Mark-led leadership from presenting itself as the legitimate leadership of the party.
The plaintiff contends that the process that produced Mark, Aregbesola and other members of the National Working Committee violated provisions of the ADC Constitution and the Electoral Act.
Named as defendants in the suit are the ADC, Senator David Mark, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, INEC and former National Chairman Ralph Nwosu.
Following arguments from all parties, Justice Lifu adjourned the matter until June 16 for a composite ruling on the recusal applications filed by the ADC and Aregbesola.
The court also directed all parties to file their defence processes before the next hearing date and indicated that further proceedings would depend on the outcome of the ruling on the recusal motions.
