ADC Leadership Crisis Intensifies as Court Responds to Recusal Request
The leadership crisis within the African Democratic Congress (ADC) reached a new phase on Monday, following the Federal High Court in Abuja’s decision regarding Judge Peter Riff’s recusal application. This ruling, anticipated on June 16, centers around a lawsuit challenging the party’s leadership structure.
Judge Riff Calls for Responses from All Parties
In his directive, Judge Riff instructed all involved parties to submit their responses ahead of the next court date to ensure the proceedings continue without delay. The recusal application originated from the ADC, its national secretary Rauf Aregbesola, and party executive Nkemakorum Ukandu. They are seeking Judge Riff’s withdrawal from the case brought forth by the party’s national executive, Nafiu Bala Gombe.
Opposing Arguments Highlight Leadership Divisions
Mr. Bala Gombe is embroiled in a legal battle concerning ongoing leadership disputes within the opposition party, which underscores significant divides among key stakeholders. His attorney, Lukman Fagbemi (SAN), contested the application for Judge Riff’s removal, arguing that the plaintiffs had no substantial evidence necessitating the judge’s withdrawal.
Legal Maneuvering and Application Challenges
Fagbemi further objected to Ukandu’s motion to join the case, emphasizing that the matter had initially been presented to Justice Emeka Nwite before being reassigned to Judge Riff. He pointed out that Judge Riff had not even addressed the case when the recusal request was made.
Additional Motions and Clarifications Presented
During the proceedings, ADC attorney Shaib Alwa (SAN) informed the court that the recusal application filed on June 2 sought an order compelling Judge Riff to withdraw and return the case to the Chief Justice of the Federal High Court for reassignment. In a related plea, Realwan Okpanachi, representing Aregbesola, urged the court to grant his client’s motion to set aside the case, which was also submitted on June 2.
INEC Clarifies Its Position in Ongoing Litigation
Counsel Adam Bello, representing the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), clarified that the commission had not filed an application regarding Judge Riff’s recusal and was not opposed to the judge proceeding with the case. This statement adds another layer of complexity to the ongoing leadership struggle within the ADC.
Unfolding Legal Strategies and Procedural Decisions
Meanwhile, Ukandu’s attorney, Karkar Agu, informed the court that her client had submitted petitions both to Judge Riff and the Chief Justice regarding the matter. She also mentioned that Ukandu was seeking a stay of proceedings pending the outcome of the request and the filing of a different suit against the National Judicial Council, the Chief Justice, and Judge Riff. Agu expressed concerns about her client’s ability to secure a fair judicial outcome.
Judge Riff’s Ruling on Case Participation
Judge Riff raised questions about the basis of the petition, expressing surprise that it was filed before any substantive actions had been taken by the court. Ultimately, he ruled that Ukandu was not yet a party to the case, as the application for his inclusion remained undecided. “Candidates who are not parties to the litigation cannot be heard,” the judge stated. The proceedings have been adjourned until June 16, when a comprehensive judgment on all pending applications will be delivered, further influencing the leadership debate within the ADC.
