The human-rights lawyer made the accusation after a ruling invalidated the David Mark-led ADC leadership and decisions taken under it, including the process that produced Atiku Abubakar as the party’s 2027 presidential candidate.
Former chairman of the National Human Rights Commission, Professor Chidi Anselm Odinkalu, has accused Federal High Court Justices Peter Lifu and John Tsoho of political complicity following a ruling that invalidated the David Mark-led leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
In a social media post, Odinkalu described the judges as “members of an organised political crime gang.” The allegation is his opinion; the post did not provide evidence establishing criminal conduct by either judge.
Justice Lifu’s November 5 ruling nullified the Mark-led leadership and decisions taken under it, including the process that produced Atiku Abubakar as the ADC’s 2027 presidential candidate.
The decision has intensified a dispute over control of the party and the validity of the committee led by Mark. The ADC and Atiku’s camp have rejected the ruling and said they intend to challenge it.
Odinkalu’s criticism of Tsoho
Odinkalu also criticised Tsoho, the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, accusing him of enabling what he described as Lifu’s “decadence.”
He wrote that Tsoho “knows what he is doing” and suggested that both judges were influenced by political considerations and self-preservation. Odinkalu’s post offered no supporting documentation for alleged political ties, bribery or coordination between the judges and government officials.
Neither judge’s response to the allegations was available. The claims remain accusations, not findings of fact. Any challenge to the ruling must be considered separately from allegations of judicial misconduct, which require evidence.
Earlier ruling adds to the dispute
The November decision follows a separate Federal High Court judgment in July concerning the ADC leadership.
On July 2, Justice Musa Liman dismissed a suit challenging Mark’s leadership, ruling that the court lacked jurisdiction over internal party affairs. Liman also found that the claimant lacked standing and had not exhausted the party’s internal dispute-resolution process.
According to the July ruling, Mark and National Secretary Rauf Aregbesola emerged through a process that complied with the ADC constitution and the Electoral Act. That decision addressed the issues in the case before Liman; the November ruling arose from a separate suit.
The ADC and Atiku’s camp argue that the later decision conflicts with Liman’s judgment. Atiku’s camp says it plans to appeal and seek a stay of execution.
The latest ruling also comes after an earlier order by Lifu directing the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister the ADC and four other parties. The Court of Appeal stayed that order in June, saying Lifu had proceeded despite an appellate directive to halt the proceedings. The appellate court later overturned the deregistration judgment, finding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction and faulting the plaintiff’s standing. It also criticised Lifu for continuing despite the stay order.
That appellate decision is relevant context, but it does not by itself establish that the later ADC leadership ruling was politically motivated or that Tsoho directed Lifu.
Other criticism
Lawyer Abdul Mahmud responded to the latest ruling with the phrase “Lifu strikes again,” referring to the earlier deregistration case. He also described the current political climate as a “Tinubu hegemony” and questioned whether elections could effectively challenge it.
Other commentators called for greater scrutiny of INEC and its election systems, and one demanded the resignation of INEC chairman Joash Amupitan. Some also made allegations about political influence over the electoral process. The posts cited no evidence to substantiate those claims.
What happens next
The dispute now involves the ADC’s leadership, Atiku’s candidacy and competing interpretations of court decisions. The legal effect of the November ruling will depend on its precise orders and any decisions made on appeal, including whether a stay is granted.
Odinkalu’s remarks have added to public criticism of the judiciary, but they remain allegations. The ruling itself does not establish that Lifu or Tsoho acted on behalf of President Bola Tinubu or the All Progressives Congress.
