No Judge Will Be Punished For Reaching A Decision Unless Misconduct Is Found — Ubani

Reported by: Oahimire Omone Precious | Edited by: Oravbiere Osayomore Promise.

As the controversy over a Federal High Court judgment ordering the deregistration of five political parties continues to dominate legal discourse, the Chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association Electoral Committee and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Dr Monday Ubani, has clarified that no judge in Nigeria can be sanctioned simply for reaching a decision, no matter how unpopular, unless a clear case of judicial misconduct is established. The clarification came amid mounting calls for the National Judicial Council to probe Justice Peter Lifu over the deregistration ruling, which the Court of Appeal later stayed and condemned as an affront to judicial hierarchy.

Speaking on Arise Television's 'Day Break' on Tuesday, June 16, 2026, Ubani emphasised that the judicial system has established procedures for addressing errors in judicial decisions, and that punishment is not automatic merely because a judge delivers a judgment that is later overturned or criticised. "The system also has a procedure and measures for punishments if any misconduct is established. There is an appellate process to go on appeal to challenge the decision of a lower court," Ubani said. "But where a judge reaches a decision, and a misconduct is found after investigations have been carried out, only then can that judge be punished. Reaching a wrong decision does not in any way entail punishment automatically."

Ubani's remarks come in the wake of a firestorm triggered by Justice Peter Lifu's ruling on Monday, June 15, 2026, which ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Accord Party, Action Peoples Party (APP), Action Alliance (AA), and Zenith Labour Party (ZLP) for allegedly failing to meet constitutional performance thresholds. The ruling sparked immediate backlash from the affected parties, with the ADC and Accord Party vowing to challenge the decision.

The Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, delivered a stinging rebuke to Justice Lifu on Tuesday, June 16, 2026, staying the execution of his judgment and describing his conduct as "the highest form of judicial impertinence" and "judicial rascality." The appellate court noted that Justice Lifu had proceeded to deliver his ruling despite an earlier order from the Court of Appeal, dated May 22, 2026, directing him to suspend proceedings pending the determination of an appeal filed by the Accord Party. The panel, led by Justice A.B. Mohammed, held that the trial judge's action was a "brazen violation of the hierarchy of the court and the 1999 Constitution."

The controversy has led to heightened scrutiny of Justice Lifu's conduct, with a civil society organisation, TAP Initiative for Citizens' Development, filing a petition before the National Judicial Council on June 16, 2026, seeking an investigation into the judge's handling of the case. The group accused Justice Lifu of disregarding a subsisting appellate court order and pending appellate proceedings, warning that his actions could undermine public confidence in the judiciary.

Ubani, however, cautioned against conflating judicial error with judicial misconduct. He explained that the appellate process exists precisely to correct errors, and that no judge should face punishment for a decision that is merely overturned on appeal. "Where a judge reaches a decision, and a misconduct is found after investigations have been carried out, only then can that judge be punished," he reiterated.

His remarks have been interpreted by legal observers as a measured intervention in a debate that has become increasingly heated, with some political actors and civil society groups demanding disciplinary action against Justice Lifu. While acknowledging the gravity of the appellate court's criticism, Ubani stressed that the judicial system must follow its established procedures before any punitive measures are considered.

As the legal community continues to grapple with the implications of the deregistration ruling and the appellate court's rebuke, Ubani's clarification serves as a reminder that the threshold for judicial punishment remains high, and that the appellate process, not automatic sanctions, is the primary mechanism for correcting judicial errors.

📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com ✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters News | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews