The African Democratic Congress (ADC) Presidential Campaign Council has accused Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho, of bias over the reassignment of a case involving the celebration’s management dispute from Justice Emeka Nwite to Justice Peter Lifu.
The council additionally referred to as for the quick launch of the total judgment within the matter, saying the celebration wanted the official copy and the explanations for the choice to pursue applicable authorized motion.
In an announcement signed by its Director of Strategic Communications, Phrank Shaibu, on Tuesday, the council alleged that Justice Tsoho reassigned the case to Justice Lifu a day after receiving a proper protest from the ADC National Secretary, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola.
The assertion was titled, “Tinubu Must Face Atiku, Not Hide Behind Tsoho’s Courtroom Manoeuvres.”
The council stated Justice Nwite had already commenced listening to the case and had not recused himself when the plaintiff requested that it’s transferred.
According to the assertion, the plaintiff sought the reassignment on the grounds of delay and a loss of confidence in acquiring a well timed listening to.
It added that the celebration’s attorneys responded to the request on May 11, 2026, outlining earlier adjournments, disputing the plaintiff’s account of who brought about them and describing the request as discussion board buying.
The assertion additional disclosed that Aregbesola wrote to Justice Tsoho on June 2, asking him to reverse the reassignment.
It stated the letter expressly acknowledged that the celebration had no confidence in Justice Lifu’s impartiality and formally protested the switch.
“Yet, the case was assigned to Justice Lifu the next day,” the council acknowledged.
Questioning the choice, the ADC stated, “Justice Tsoho received our protest. Why did he proceed with the transfer? What did he find in the plaintiff’s allegation of delay that outweighed the court record and our protest? Let him publish his reasons. Let Nigerians read them beside the letters.”
The council stated the sequence and timing of the reassignment raised issues about bias and the impartiality of the method, urging Justice Tsoho to publicly clarify why the celebration’s protest was disregarded.
It additionally expressed concern over Justice Lifu’s earlier dealing with of one other swimsuit involving the ADC, during which he reportedly ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister the celebration and 4 others regardless of a Court of Appeal order staying proceedings.
According to the assertion, the appellate courtroom subsequently described his determination to proceed because the “highest form of judicial impertinence” and invoked Supreme Court authority on “judicial rascality” earlier than nullifying the deregistration judgment.
The council additionally referred to an authorized judgment delivered by Justice Musa Liman, who dismissed a problem to the ADC management for lack of advantage and locus standi.
It stated Justice Liman held that the interior celebration dispute was non-justiciable, declared the management handover lawful and affirmed INEC’s recognition of the celebration’s National Chairman and National Secretary.
The ADC argued that Justice Lifu, sitting in the identical Federal High Court, couldn’t disregard these orders, including that the problem was among the many questions its attorneys had taken earlier than the Court of Appeal.
The assertion stated Justice Tsoho owed Nigerians an evidence if no exterior stress influenced his determination to switch the case.
The council maintained that no matter circumstances surrounded the Chief Judge, the ADC’s proper to a good listening to should not be compromised.
It additional urged judicial officers to replicate on the position of courtroom choices within the crises previous the tip of the First and Second Republics, citing the judicial historical past of each intervals.
The ADC additionally referred to as on the National Judicial Council (NJC) to research the reassignment, the formal protest acquired by Justice Tsoho and Justice Lifu’s conduct.
Turning to the political implications of the dispute, the council challenged the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) to confront former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar politically moderately than by way of courtroom proceedings.
“The ruling APC should be bold enough to face Atiku Abubakar on the political battleground and answer for the hardship Nigerians endure. The hallowed chambers of our courts must not be turned into arenas for political combat,” it acknowledged.
The council insisted that Atiku remained the celebration’s presidential candidate and stated it might proceed to defend its place earlier than the Court of Appeal.
“Atiku remains our candidate. The law is on his side, not sentiment. We will defend that position before the Court of Appeal and keep the record before Nigerians,” the assertion added.
It stated Nigerians’ proper to decide on their president should not turn into a bargaining chip within the battle for political energy.
