Factional governorship candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) in Rivers State, Dr. Farah Dagogo, has criticized the judgment of the Federal High Court in Abuja ordering the deregistration of the ADC and four other political parties, describing the decision as an abuse of judicial process and a violation of an existing Court of Appeal order.
Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court, Abuja, on Monday, in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/2637/2026, directed the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister five political parties — the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Accord, Action Alliance (AA), Action Peoples Party (APP), and Zenith Labour Party (ZLP).
The suit was filed by the National Forum of Former Legislators, which sought the court’s interpretation of whether INEC has a constitutional obligation under Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the Electoral Act 2022, and relevant electoral regulations to deregister political parties that fail to meet stipulated electoral performance requirements.
Reacting to the ruling, Dagogo argued that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to proceed with the matter because of a subsisting order of the Court of Appeal.
He pointed to a ruling delivered by the Court of Appeal on May 22, 2026, in Appeal No. CA/ABJ/CV/569/2026, Accord v. Incorporated Trustees of National Forum of Former Legislators & 6 Ors., in which the appellate court granted a stay of proceedings and adjourned the appeal to October 27, 2026, for hearing.
According to Dagogo, the Court of Appeal held that the purpose of a stay of proceedings is to preserve the subject matter of a dispute pending the determination of an appeal and to ensure that any eventual decision of the appellate court is not rendered ineffective.
He further stated that the appellate court, after reviewing the grounds of appeal and supporting affidavit evidence, found sufficient justification to grant the application for stay of proceedings.
The court also noted that there was no substantial opposition from the respondents before granting the motion pursuant to Order 4 Rules 10 and 11 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2021.
Dagogo expressed concern over what he described as the Federal High Court’s disregard for the binding directive of the Court of Appeal, insisting that proceeding with and determining the substantive matter despite a subsisting stay order undermines due process and the rule of law.
