The Federal High Court Abuja yesterday rejected an application seeking to stop proceedings in a suit seeking the deregistration of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Accord Party (AP), Zenith Labour Party (ZLP) and Action Alliance Party (AAP) over alleged constitutional violations.

The suit was filed by the Incorporated Trustees of the National Forum of Former Legislators (NFFL) against the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), and political parties accused of failing to meet constitutional requirements for continued recognition. Justice Peter Lifu declined the request by Musibau Adetunbi (SAN), lawyer for the Accord Party, to stay proceedings pending the determination of appeals filed before the Court of Appeal.

The court held that the matter had earlier been placed on accelerated hearing owing to its urgency and public importance. Adetunbi, who cited Supreme Court authorities, argued that a lower court could not continue to entertain arguments on issues already pending before a higher court. Lawyer for the ADC Shuaib Aruwa (SAN), as well as those of the APP and ZLP, aligned with the submissions seeking a stay of proceedings.

The defence lawyers collectively argued that it was settled law that the trial court should await the outcome of proceedings at the appellate court before taking further steps in the matter. They maintained that proceeding with the suit with an appeal pending could prejudice the issues already submitted before the Court of Appeal.

Lawyer for the APP Peter Abang informed the court that an affidavit of facts was filed at the appellate court on May 7, and served on parties, adding that no counter-affidavit had been filed against the processes. Abang, however, raised an additional argument on jurisdiction, contending that the fourth defendant had earlier challenged the competence of the suit and that the court should not proceed in a manner capable of pre-empting the appellate court’s decision on the issue.

Aruwa also argued that the Court of Appeal was active and could determine the appeal within a week. Opposing the applications, lawyer for the NFFL plaintiff Yakubu Ruba argued that the appeal before the appellate court was interlocutory and did not automatically deprive the trial court of jurisdiction to continue hearing the matter.

He cited a 1989 Supreme Court decision, arguing that there was no subsisting order restraining the Federal High Court from continuing with proceedings. After listening to arguments from all parties, Justice Lifu adjourned the matter until May 18 for further proceedings.