The Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday declined an ex parte application seeking to restrain Senator Ireti Kingibe from participating in the affairs of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), in a ruling that underscores the judiciary’s cautious approach to internal party disputes.
Justice Peter Lifu, who presided over the matter, held that granting such a request without hearing from all parties would be inconsistent with the principles of fair hearing. The court instead directed the plaintiffs to put the senator on notice, allowing her the opportunity to respond to the allegations and defend her position before any substantive order could be made.
The suit was instituted by two ward leaders, Okezuo Anayo and Isaiah Samuel, said to be acting on behalf of other members of the ADC in Wuse, Federal Capital Territory. The plaintiffs alleged that Senator Kingibe had been suspended by the ward executives over alleged anti-party activities and persistent disregard for the party’s constitution.
In their application, the plaintiffs sought an interim injunction barring the lawmaker from presenting herself as a member of the party or participating in its activities pending the determination of the substantive suit. They also asked the court to restrain her from attending meetings, carrying out party functions, or interfering in the administration of the ward, including its register and official processes.
The plaintiffs claimed that the suspension, which they said took effect on March 10, 2026, followed due process and was ratified by a two-thirds majority of the ward executive committee. They further alleged that despite being formally notified, the senator continued to act as a party member, held parallel meetings, issued statements in the name of the party, and allegedly deployed security aides to intimidate ward officials.
According to them, such actions amounted to a clear violation of party discipline and internal mechanisms, warranting judicial intervention to prevent further disruption within the ward structure.
However, in his ruling, Justice Lifu emphasized that courts must exercise discretion carefully, particularly in politically sensitive matters. He noted that granting an ex parte application of such magnitude would effectively determine the rights of the parties without giving the defendant an opportunity to be heard.
The judge maintained that justice would only be served if both sides were allowed to present their arguments fully, stressing that the principles of natural justice must not be compromised, regardless of the urgency or nature of the claims.
Consequently, the court ordered that all relevant processes be served on Senator Kingibe, enabling her to respond to the allegations and join issues with the plaintiffs. The matter was adjourned until April 20, 2026, for the hearing of all pending applications.
During the proceedings, a lawyer, Abubakar Marshall, who identified himself as counsel to the senator, informed the court that a preliminary objection challenging the suit had already been filed. He added that the objection had been duly served on the plaintiffs’ counsel, indicating that the defence would contest the competence of the case at the next hearing.
The ruling comes amid heightened tensions within the ADC, which has been grappling with internal divisions and leadership disputes in recent weeks. The party has faced a series of legal and political challenges, including conflicting claims to its leadership structure and interventions by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), further complicating its internal dynamics.
Observers note that the court’s decision to refuse the ex parte application reflects a broader judicial reluctance to interfere prematurely in intra-party conflicts without affording all parties a fair hearing. It also signals that the dispute involving Senator Kingibe is likely to evolve into a more substantive legal battle, with implications not only for the individuals involved but also for the party’s stability in the Federal Capital Territory.
As the case progresses, attention will remain on how the court navigates the competing claims of party discipline and individual political rights, particularly in a climate where internal party cohesion continues to be tested across Nigeria’s political landscape.
Discussion about this post