On Judicial Rascality: When Judges Defy the Court Above Them and Lawyers Who Enable Them

A legal scholar is sharply criticizing judicial misconduct, particularly when judges disregard orders from higher courts. Dr. Eyimofe Atake, SAN, argues that such actions undermine the very foundation of the rule of law in a constitutional democracy.

The article focuses on a specific instance involving Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja. Despite an explicit order from a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal on May 22, 2026, to stay proceedings in a case concerning the deregistration of five political parties, Justice Lifu reportedly proceeded to deliver a judgment. The author notes that a lawyer attempted to bring the Court of Appeal's order to the judge's attention before the judgment was rendered, but the judge allegedly disregarded it.

“

When a Judge deliberately flouts that obligation, he does not merely commit a legal error, he strikes at the very architecture of the rule of law.

Atake emphasizes that this is not merely a legal error but a direct assault on the judicial architecture. He asserts that judges who commit such acts are often enabled by lawyers, sometimes senior advocates, who provide the legal means and arguments for the misconduct. The piece calls for accountability for both the judge and the lawyers involved.

The case study involves the deregistration of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Action Peoples Party (APP), Action Alliance (AA), Accord Party (AP), and Zenith Labour Party (ZLP). Atake clarifies that his critique is not about the merits of the deregistration or the political fortunes of the parties but about the principle of judicial integrity and the constitutional obligation of all courts to obey superior orders. The integrity of the judicial process, he contends, transcends specific political interests.

“

Both must be called to account, and it is the purpose of this piece to do so.