A Federal High Court in Abuja has imposed a fine of N500,000 each on the African Democratic Congress (ADC) and its interim National Secretary, Rauf Aregbesola, for filing a recusal application that the court deemed baseless. Justice Peter Lifu delivered the ruling on Tuesday, dismissing the motion that sought his withdrawal from a suit concerning the party's leadership crisis.
Background of the Suit
The ADC and Aregbesola, a former Osun State governor and ex-minister of interior, had on June 8 asked Justice Lifu to recuse himself, accusing him of bias. They requested that the case be transferred to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court for reassignment. The suit was originally filed by Nafiu-Bala Gombe, an ADC member claiming to be the party's authentic chairman. Gombe sued the ADC, interim National Chairman David Mark, Aregbesola, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), and Ralph Nwosu.
Gombe, a party official before recent defections altered the leadership structure, challenges the emergence of Mark and Aregbesola as national chairman and secretary, arguing that their appointments violate the party's constitution. He seeks to nullify their appointments and restrain them from acting as party leaders. Gombe opposed the recusal application and urged the court to proceed.
The case, initially before Justice Emeka Nwite, was appealed to the Supreme Court and later reassigned to Justice Lifu upon return to the Federal High Court.
Ruling on Recusal Motion
In his ruling, Justice Lifu held that the recusal motions lacked merit and contained no credible evidence of bias. He stated that the reasons advanced were extraneous and described the applications as an abuse of court process. "There is no iota of bias," the judge ruled, noting that the motions were filed before the court fully assumed jurisdiction.
"The law is settled that allegations of bias are grave allegations. Whoever alleges bias must provide clear evidence," he said. The judge criticized the applicants for failing to prove their claims, calling the attempt an effort to blackmail and intimidate the court. "Nobody can intimidate the court," he maintained.
Justice Lifu emphasized that courts must not grant baseless recusal requests to prevent litigants from choosing their preferred judges. He described the applications as forum shopping, alleging that the applicants sought to move the case to a judge they expected to favor their position. "Parties cannot choose the court that hears their case," he said, adding that case assignment rests with court administrators. "A judge must be firm in doing justice and not dance to the whims and caprices of counsel."
He warned that granting such applications without evidence would set a dangerous precedent. Consequently, he dismissed the application and imposed a N500,000 cost on each applicant in favor of the plaintiff.
Challenge Over Earlier Ruling
Earlier, Kalu-Kalu Agu, lawyer for Nkemakolam Ukandu (ADC National Welfare Secretary), challenged the judge's authority to deliver the ruling. Ukandu, who had filed a joinder application, referenced Justice Lifu's Monday order deregistering the ADC and four other parties for alleged breach of Section 225 of the Constitution. Agu argued that the ruling affected the party's existence, questioning the continuation of proceedings. "In view of your lordship's ruling and the continued existence of the 1st defendant, which has been declared dead, I do not see why this ruling should continue," he said.
The judge asked Agu whether he was a party in the suit. Agu replied affirmatively, but the judge questioned his standing and whether he had been formally joined. Gombe's lawyer, Robert Emukpoeruo (SAN), opposed the submission, noting that the joinder application had not been granted. He relied on Order 9 Rule 14(4) of the court's rules, maintaining that Ukandu remained a non-party until properly joined. When Agu attempted to respond, the judge cautioned him against further interruption.
Lawyers for Aregbesola, Mark, and Nwosu also made submissions. In his ruling, Justice Lifu held that the matter was distinct from the Monday judgment. He adjourned the case until June 23 for hearing of all pending applications.
