Group alleges “judicial ambush” as court revokes bail of human rights lawyer

Reading time: 3 mins
News
Lifusprudence: An Introduction to a Judicial Hitman By Chidi Anselm Odinkalu Nigeria has been blessed over the years with a rich supply of towering judicial intellect. The second Chief Justice of post-colonial Nigeria, Taslim Olawale Elias, for instance, was the country’s first law professor. In 1949, he became the first African to take a Ph.D. in law from the University of London. That was five years after his contemporary at the Supreme Court of Nigeria and first African Chief Justice of post-colonial Uganda, Egbert Udo Udoma, became one of the first Africans to take a Ph.D. from Oxford University. Taslim Elias and Egbert Udo Udoma did not have a monopoly of rarefied qualifications in the annals of the Nigerian judiciary. George Baptist Ayodola (GBA) Coker, who also ended up at the Supreme Court, received his Ph.D. from the University of London in 1955. 11 years later, in 1966, Augustine Nnamani received his doctorate degree in law from the London School of Economics. His career in the law would take him from the chambers of the Attorney-General of the Federation to the bench of the Supreme Court where he served with distinction. Chief Justice Elias is not the only academic of note or law professor to have sat at the highest levels of Nigeria’s judiciary. Adolphus Karibi-Whyte who retired as a senior Justice of the Supreme Court, began his judicial career as an academic in University of Lagos. Okay Achike was a professor of public law at University of Nigeria, Nsukka. Niki Tobi, another notable former Justice of the same court, was Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Maiduguri. These were by no means the only teachers ever to serve at the highest levels of Nigeria’s judiciary. At the Supreme Court, Karibi-Whyte found himself senior to Chukwudifu Oputa, one of the most celebrated judicial careers ever produced by the country, who was his teacher in high school. These extraordinary judicial careers decorate the country’s law reports with timeless precedents. Despite the durability of their decisions and the coherence of their reasoning, none of their judicial figures managed to earn a brand as such. In the firmament of Nigeria’s judicial careers, therefore, there has existed for a long time this lingering vacuum of a coherent judicial brand in need of a name. One man changed that. Born in 1965, in Okpoma, Yala Local Government Area of Cross River State, Peter Lifu became a lawyer in 1990, the same year in which Augustine Nnamani died. Two years later, he was his own boss, running his own private law office in Ibadan, capital of Oyo State. From the famous university located in the same city, Peter later received two graduate degrees in political science and law, respectively. He would later join the faculty of law at the same university, specializing in public and international laws. In 2013, Peter Lifu began his judicial career as a judge of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN). Two years later, in 2015, he was switched from the NICN to become a judge of the Federal High Court. On the bench of the Federal High Court, he was set up in a courtroom located at an “uncomfortable intersection between law, politics, and (adverse) public perception.” As if connected to a peculiar judicial magnet, Peter Lifu established a reputation for attracting the cases with the most exciting political flavour. The man himself quickly made a name for himself as a judge whom the ruling party and allied interests could depend on. When a faction of a political party goes shopping for a court order to short circuit party governance, they usually find a ready mall in his courtroom. When a politician is looking for a judge to knee-cap his opponent under a ruse of law, the court of Peter is likely to be their forum of choice. How these cases manage with such predictability and effortlessness to end up on Peter’s docket must be down to a judicial code shared exclusively between him and the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court. In a career spanning 13 years on the bench, Peter “has become one of the most discussed judges in Nigeria’s recent judicial history”, no mean achievement for a serving judge in the lower reaches of the judicial hierarchy. He has achieved this on the back of a reputation for what has been described as “a worrying willingness to disregard the very constitutional guardrails that hold our democracy together.” Peter Lifu’s brand of judicial decision making seems to be protected by a variety of clientelism that clothes total disregard for guardrails with the kind of impunity reserved for organized crime captains. As a recognizable brand, there is only one name for it. It is Lifusprudence. Lifusprudence is not a science. In many ways, it is everything that judicial decision making should not be. It is transparently predictable, purchasable, and pre-determined. The country got a clinical demonstration of the capabilities of Lifusprudence recently in a rather disturbing case seeking to de-register five political parties. Section 225A of Nigeria’s constitution grants to the Commission “power to de-register a political party.” It does not place it under a duty to do so. This distinction between a power and a statutory duty is one that should be easily clear to any judge. Apparently, Peter Lifu did not get the memo. On 15 June, he ordered INEC to de-register the parties. To achieve this result, Peter Lifu did something remarkable. He re-drafted the constitution. Under section 225A, INEC’s can de-register a political party that fails to win certain minimum of seats in various elections or fails to meet registration requirements. In this case, the claim was that the parties involved had failed to achieve the minimum threshold of seats in elections. But the evidence before the court showed conclusively that the parties had in fact crossed the constitutional thresholds of electoral performance. It was also in evidence that many of those who won seats on the platform of the parties had defected subsequently to the ruling party. Peter’s response? “Section 225A contemplates those who won and remain and not those who carried their mandate to another political party.” There was no authority for this proposition – not logic; not precedent; not the text of the constitution. This was casual judicial invention for a pre-determined end. On its face, the judgment was a model of Lifusprudence – corrupt, convenient, and casuistic. The only rationale hidden in his 103-page text was the wondrous assertion that “proliferation of political parties….should be discouraged.” Even this line runs contrary to existing jurisprudence. But Lifusprudence is uniquely supreme in its design and trajectory. It does not reckon with even the discipline of judicial hierarchies or precedent. 25 days before the judgment, on 22 May 2026, the Court of Appeal in Abuja issued an order “staying further proceedings” in the case before Peter Lifu. In his judgment, Peter reduced this to “arrest of judgment” and claimed that “the rules of court do not have provision for arrest of judgment.” But the terms of the order by the Court of Appeal were clear: they had ordered proceedings stayed. In Peter’s head and for his purpose, judgment is not part of the proceedings. The Court of Appeal was constrained to describe his conduct as “the highest form of judicial impertinence”. It also called Peter “a misfit to the bench.” Another writer called him an “embarrassment” to the judiciary. Columnist, Owei Lakemfa, called him the author of “anarchism in judicial robes.” Major newspapers joined the Court of Appeal in calling Peter Lifu a “judicial rascal”. The suggestion of mischief or cheekiness implicit in the use of “judicial rascal” to describe Peter Lifu misunderstands and misrepresents Lifusprudence. Lifusprudence is the dark art of taking the prudence out of the science of law. It is underpinned by casual wilfulness under colour of judicial pronouncement. That is what makes it so dangerous because although it reads as law, Lifusprudence is actually network crime. The surprise is that it has acquired a distinct identity in a system that should exist to suppress it. Now, as the country gets ready for elections, it is the season for Lifusprudence to thrive and revel in the joint enterprise between politicians and Peter, their judicial hitman. A lawyer and a teacher, Odinkalu can be reached at chidi.odinkalu@tufts.edu
Image of court gavel used to illustrate the report
Mustapha USMAN
Mustapha USMAN

LIBERTY Semper Fidelis LP has condemned the revocation of bail and remand of its Managing Partner, Abdul Mahmud, by a Senior Magistrate Court in Mararaba, Nasarawa State, describing it as an instance of judicial misconduct and targeted persecution.

In a press statement dated February 28, 2026, the firm described the ruling delivered on Friday, February 27, by Senior Magistrate Zuluhiat Yusuf as a “judicial ambush,” insisting that Mahmud had faithfully attended court proceedings since the case began in 2023.

Backstory

The statement noted that the matter originated from a civil dispute between the Incorporated Trustees of Fatima Gold Estate, Mararaba, and Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) Muhammed Amabua, who owns two bungalows within the estate.

The estate authorities had reportedly accused the police officer of failing to pay estate dues and development levies since acquiring the properties in 2019.

At an estate general meeting in May 2023, residents allegedly resolved that defaulters owing N200,000 and above should receive formal demand notices and face suspension of services such as waste evacuation and electricity supply if they failed to comply.

It noted that fourteen residents were affected during the incident.

Meanwhile, tensions reportedly escalated on June 26, 2023, when Mahmud encountered two female police officers at the estate gate, with Amabua Muhammed allegedly in a police van, manhandling a security guard.

According to the statement, the officers claimed the guard had falsely imprisoned the DCP’s sister, prompting Mahmud to ask that the officers either contact the guard’s employer or produce a warrant of arrest before leaving for his church service.

Later that day, residents reportedly gathered to resist further arrests after additional police officers were invited to the estate. The firm claimed that during the confrontation, Amabua allegedly seized Mahmud by his shirt before being restrained.

Read Also:

2015 Elections: Court Adjourns Hearing Jonathan’s Eligibility
2019 ELECTIONS: Melaye, Dambazau’s son, others— list of politicians sacked by tribunals
2023: Wike sues Atiku, asks court to declare him PDP presidential candidate
77 Shiites Charged For Breaching Peace In Kano

Mahmud was later arrested pursuant to a warrant issued by a magistrate in New Nyanya. He was arraigned in July 2023 and granted bail on self-recognition before the matter was adjourned to August 2023.

”Upon learning of the arrest, IGP Tunji Bello, former Principal Staff Officer to the then Inspector General of Police, Kayode Egbetokun, directed that Mahmud be released. Mahmud was asked to return on 5 July 2023 for settlement discussions. On returning on that date, Mahmud was immediately arraigned and granted bail on self-recognisance. The matter was adjourned to 23 August 2023,” the statement noted.

Fresh complaint, detention

In August 2023, Amabua filed a fresh complaint at the Force Intelligence Bureau in Abuja.

“On 17 August 2023, DCP Amabua filed a further criminal complaint against Mahmud at the Force Intelligence Bureau in Abuja and Mahmud retained the services of Femi Falana SAN. Mahmud honoured the summons on 27 August 2023, was detained for nine hours, and was again granted bail on self- recognisance. The complaint was subsequently quashed for want of substance,” the statement added.

The law firm stated that Mahmud subsequently petitioned the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), the Police Service Commission, and the Code of Conduct Bureau, alleging abuse of office and corruption.

It claimed the petitions were not acted upon.

Court proceedings and alleged irregularities

Liberty Semper Fidelis LP alleged that during trial proceedings, charges were amended and consolidated repeatedly, and objections raised by the defence were overruled.

It added that the Nasarawa State Attorney General later took over the case.

The firm said that as trial was about to commence, the prosecution team was changed, and the new counsel adopted what it described as an “unmistakably adversarial posture.”

The immediate controversy leading to the bail revocation, according to the statement, arose after the prosecution alleged in October 2025, that Mahmud had instigated the Inspector General of Police to issue a signal summoning Amabua to the Force Headquarters.

The defence denied this claim, stating that the petition allegedly written by Mahmud was not produced in court and that the author of the police signal was not before the court.

When the matter came up on February 27, 2026, the Magistrate overruled Mahmud’s preliminary objection challenging the court’s jurisdiction and proceeded to revoke his bail.

The firm further alleged irregular communication regarding hearing dates and claimed that, on some occasions, the defence appeared in court while the magistrate or prosecution was absent.

It also said Mahmud had travelled to the United Kingdom for treatment of pneumonia and cardiovascular complications but returned to Nigeria to attend trial.

Call for intervention

Liberty Semper Fidelis LP called on the Chief Judge of Nasarawa State to review what it described as troubling proceedings in the court presided over by Magistrate Yusuf.

It questioned her continued involvement in the matter, alleging she had previously been transferred but was still presiding under a fiat.

Mustapha Usman is an investigative journalist with the International Centre for Investigative Reporting. You can easily reach him via: musman@icirnigeria.com. He tweets @UsmanMustapha_M

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Join the ICIR WhatsApp channel for in-depth reports on the economy, politics and governance, and investigative reports.

CLICK HERE

Support the ICIR

We invite you to support us to continue the work we do.

Your support will strengthen journalism in Nigeria and help sustain our democracy.

DONATE

If you or someone you know has a lead, tip or personal experience about this report, our WhatsApp line is open and confidential for a conversation

Support the ICIR

We need your support to produce excellent journalism at all times.

Donate
-Advertisement-

Recent

- Advertisement