Nafiu-Bala Gombe, a member of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), on Monday, asked Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court, Abuja Division, to dismiss the motion seeking his withdrawal from the leadership tussle suit.

Mr Gombe’s lawyer, Lukman Fagbemi, SAN, argued that the defendants had not placed any evidence before the court to justify the grant of the application.

Mr Fagbemi stated this while responding to the separate motions moved by counsel for the ADC, Shaibu Aruwa, SAN, and Realwan Okpanachi, who represented Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, in the case.

He urged the court to dismiss their applications.

The lawyer also urged the court to disregard the motion for recusal filed by Nkemakolam Ukandu, the ADC’s National Welfare Secretary, who is seeking to be joined in the matter.

Mr Fagbemi informed the court that separate counter-affidavits were filed in response to the defence lawyers’ motions seeking Justice Lifu’s recusal from the matter.

He said the counter affidavits were deposed to by Mr Gombe, the plaintiff, in the suit.

In the counter-affidavit in response to the ADC’s motion for recusal, the first defendant, Mr Gombe, stated that the suit was formerly pending before Justice Emeka Nwite and was only recently reassigned to Justice Lifu. The suit was formerly pending before Justice Emeka Nwite and was only recently reassigned to Justice Lifu.

The plaintiff argued that, as at the time the defendants filed the application, the matter had not come up before Justice Lifu for hearing.

He said the judge had not heard any application, taken any evidence, made any pronouncement, expressed any opinion or even delivered any ruling whatsoever in the suit upon which any form of bias might be inferred.

“There exists no act, conduct, statement or decision of Honourable Justice Peter O. Lifu in relation to this suit capable of giving rise to any reasonable apprehension of bias,” he said.

Mr Gombe argued that the suit, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/2637/2026, which allegedly gave rise to the petition referred to by the defence, is a separate and distinct action from the present suit.

He argued that the mere existence of a petition cannot, without more, constitute evidence of actual bias, likelihood of bias, or lack of impartiality on the part of the judge regarding the present suit.

He said the defence had not disclosed any fact showing that Justice Lifu had any personal interest in the suit or had conducted himself in a manner suggesting partiality.

He said the allegation that the defence would not obtain justice before the court was speculative, premature and unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.

Mr Gombe prayed the court to dismiss the defence applications.

Earlier, while moving the motion for recusal, Mr Aruwa informed the court that the application was filed on June 2.

The lawyer said the application sought an order directing the judge to withdraw from the suit, and an order returning the case file to the chief judge for reassignment to another judge.

Mr Aruwa urged the court to grant their application in the interest of justice.

Also moving his application, Mr Okpanachi, who said his motion for recusal was dated June 1 and filed June 2, prayed the court to grant it.

Adamu Bello, who appeared for the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), said the electoral umpire did not file any such motion.

He said INEC was not opposing the judge hearing the matter.

Kalu-Kalu Agu, representing Mr Ukandu, a party seeking joinder, said his application sought an order staying further proceedings in the suit pending the hearing and determination of a petition against the judge and the chief judge (CJ) of the court.

Besides, he said the application sought an order staying proceedings pending the hearing and determination of a suit filed at the Federal High Court against the National Judicial Council (NJC), the CJ and Justice Lifu.

According to him, Mr Ukandu had stated in his affidavit that he cannot get justice in the case.

When the judge asked when the petition was filed, Mr  Agu said it was filed on June 2.

Justice Lifu expressed surprise that the petition was filed even when his court had not assumed jurisdiction over the case.

Delivering a ruling, Justice Lifu held that Mr Ukandu was not yet a party in the suit.

The judge said his motion to be joined in the suit was yet to be heard, hence, “I cannot hear a prospective joinder who is not a party in the suit.”

Justice Lifu then adjourned the matter until June 16 for a composite ruling on the motions for recusal filed by the ADC and Mr Aregbesola, and for further hearing on the case, which he said would be based on the outcome of the ruling.

He ordered all the parties in the suit to file their processes of defence before the next adjourned date.

(NAN)