Justice Lifu is a Coconut Judge, He doesn’t Read – ADC Lawyer, Kalu Kalu Esq
A lawyer and member of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Kalu Kalu, Esq., has criticised the judgment delivered by Justice Peter O. Lifu of the Federal High Court, questioning the judge’s handling of the party’s leadership dispute and making remarks about the judicial officer that prompted an objection from Channels Television presenter Seun Okinbaloye.
Kalu, who appeared on the November 11, 2026 edition of Politics Today, made remarks suggesting that the judge did not read and referring to a “coconut judge”, according to the available captions of the broadcast, which were unclear at that point.
The remarks prompted Okinbaloye to interrupt the interview, cautioning the lawyer against disparaging a sitting judge and demanding that he withdraw the statement.
Kalu initially appeared to defend his comments by referring to what he said the Court of Appeal had stated about the judge in an earlier case. However, following repeated requests from the presenter, he withdrew the remarks.
“Because of time, I do withdraw it,” Kalu stated, adding that any disagreement he had with the judge could be expressed through discussion of the substance of the matter.
The exchange occurred during a discussion of the Federal High Court judgment delivered on November 5, 2026, in Gombe v. ADC & 4 Ors, concerning the leadership of the ADC and its possible implications for the candidacy of former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and other candidates of the party in the 2027 general elections.
During the interview, Okinbaloye questioned Kalu about the effect of the judgment, particularly the declaration nullifying actions undertaken by the party leadership headed by Senator David Mark.
The lawyer maintained that the judgment did not invalidate Atiku’s presidential nomination or the nominations of other ADC candidates.
Kalu thanked the presenter for providing him with an opportunity to explain his interpretation of the judgment, insisting that the court had made no pronouncement expressly disqualifying Atiku from contesting the January 16, 2027 presidential election.
He said the judgment of Justice Lifu “does not in any way void the candidacy of Atiku Abubakar for the presidential election coming up on the 16th day of January 2027.”
“There is no portion of that judgment that voids the candidacy of Atiku Abubakar and other candidates of the party. There is none. And we are placing it on record. Let the whole world go and read the judgment of Honourable Justice Peter Lifu,” he declared.
Explaining his understanding of the decision, Kalu said the court’s declaration concerned actions taken by David Mark and other party officials from July 29, 2025.
“The best you could get from that judgment,” he stated, “is a declarative order made by Honourable Justice Lifu that all actions, steps, activities taken by David Mark and [others] from the 29th day of July 2025 till date are null and void and of no effect whatsoever.”
He accused some commentators of importing consequences into the judgment which, according to him, were not expressly stated by the court.
Kalu argued that the nullification of the actions of the party’s national leadership did not automatically mean that the nominations of candidates submitted during that period had become invalid.
He maintained that it was incorrect to conclude that because David Mark’s leadership had been nullified, the nominations submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) must also fail.
“But that is not the law,” he insisted.
To support his position, Kalu relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Jegede v. INEC, reported in (2021) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1797) 409.
According to his explanation, the case involved a challenge to the nomination of a governorship candidate on the ground that the acting national chairman of the All Progressives Congress (APC), who was also the Governor of Yobe State, was not qualified to sign the nomination documents.
Kalu argued that the Supreme Court had distinguished the constitutional qualifications and disqualifications of candidates from the conduct of political party officers responsible for forwarding nominations.
“The wrongful act of national officers of a political party does not in any way invalidate the nomination of a candidate of a political party done by the people,” he stated.
He consequently argued that the ADC members who nominated Atiku and other candidates should not be deprived of their nominations merely because of the alleged irregularities involving the party’s national officers.
When Okinbaloye asked whether Justice Lifu expressly nullified Atiku’s nomination, Kalu responded:
“None at all. It’s just people on the social media we have in Nigeria just importing what is not expressly stated in that judgment.”
The presenter, however, observed that the nullification of the leadership headed by David Mark was clearly established in the judgment.
Kalu acknowledged that the court had nullified the leadership but maintained that the declaration did not necessarily extend to the nominations of candidates.
“Yes, it was,” he responded when the presenter referred to the nullification.
As Okinbaloye pressed him on whether the judgment could affect actions undertaken by the leadership, including Atiku’s nomination, Kalu made the remarks about Justice Lifu that prompted the presenter’s objection.
The available broadcast captions contain references to the judge not reading and to a “coconut judge”, although the precise wording of the statement is unclear.
Okinbaloye immediately stopped Kalu and objected to what he considered a personal attack against the judicial officer.
“I would not allow you to use this platform to disparage a sitting judge… calling him personal names and attacking his personality. I’m sorry, I wouldn’t allow you to do that. Please, I will appreciate if you withdraw that statement,” the presenter said.
Kalu appeared to explain that his remarks were connected to what the Court of Appeal had said about the judge in an earlier case.
However, Okinbaloye maintained that the television station could not permit personal attacks against judicial officers during its programmes.
“I am regulated by law… I’m just living by the tenets of my profession and my practice, and there are things that I cannot allow on this platform, on a live television, because of the tenets and the rules that guide my practice,” he explained.
“I am regulated and this organisation is regulated under a law. As much as you want to express, and I’m not stopping you from expressing it, there are some things we are not allowed to say right on this respected television station.”
The presenter repeatedly requested that the lawyer withdraw the statement.
“Can we withdraw that statement?” he asked.
Kalu eventually complied, saying, “Because of time, I do withdraw it.”
He subsequently indicated that his differences with the judge could be addressed through the substance of the judgment rather than through personal remarks.
The interview then returned to the legal implications of the Federal High Court decision.
When Okinbaloye suggested that the declaration nullifying the actions of David Mark and the National Working Committee could affect the nominations of Atiku and more than 1,400 other ADC candidates, Kalu maintained that the issue had already been settled by the Supreme Court.
He again relied on Jegede v. INEC, arguing that the validity of a candidate’s nomination should be determined separately from the legality of the actions of national party officers.
“The judgment says that the wrongful act of the national executive officers of a political party does not invalidate the lawful nomination of a candidate of a political party,” he stated.
The lawyer further questioned the treatment of INEC’s reports in the Federal High Court judgment.
According to him, INEC monitored the entire process leading to David Mark’s emergence as the ADC National Chairman and the constitution of the party’s National Working Committee.
He maintained that the electoral commission did not identify any breach of the 1999 Constitution, the Electoral Act or the ADC Constitution during the process.
Kalu also claimed that INEC placed five processes before the court supporting the emergence of Mark and other members of the party’s leadership.
“But what happened? Justice Lifu in his own wisdom nullified all the reports, all the positive reports made by INEC in support of the emergence of David Mark and their NWC members,” he said.
He argued that INEC was constitutionally responsible for monitoring political party activities and maintained that its reports on such activities were final.
According to him, the former National Chairman of the ADC, before Mark’s emergence, had communicated the relevant processes to the electoral commission.
Kalu maintained that INEC monitored those processes and did not find them to be in violation of the Constitution, the Electoral Act or the party’s constitution.
The presenter also raised the controversy surrounding the alleged resignation of Nafiu Bala Gombe, including questions about who supplied the resignation letter, its authentication and the evidence establishing that Gombe signed it.
Kalu responded that the matter was among his concerns.
“That is our worry,” he said.
He subsequently referred to an earlier case before Justice Liman, which he said concerned the emergence of David Mark as ADC National Chairman.
According to Kalu, Justice Liman held that the former National Chairman acted properly in communicating the party’s processes to INEC, that the communication was valid and that Mark emerged constitutionally as National Chairman.
He said the court consequently directed INEC to recognise Mark.
Kalu maintained that those circumstances supported his argument that the party had followed the required procedures.
He further insisted that even if Mark’s emergence were considered invalid, the Supreme Court’s decision in Jegede v. INEC protected the lawful nominations made by party members.
“What we are saying in this document is that, assuming without conceding that David Mark did not emerge from a validly conducted election that brought him as the national chairman of the party, the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case just referenced says the wrongful act of the national officers of a political party does not in any way void the nomination of a candidate validly nominated by the members of that political party,” he explained.
“In this regard, the members of ADC nominated Atiku Abubakar and other candidates of the party.”
Asked whether Atiku’s name would ultimately appear on the presidential ballot, Kalu reiterated that the Federal High Court had not expressly invalidated his nomination.
“That’s what I’m saying. There is nothing in that judgment, not just Atiku, all the candidates of the party. There is nothing in that judgment,” he stated.
He also disclosed that the ADC had challenged Justice Lifu’s judgment.
When asked whether an appeal had been filed, he confirmed that the party had taken steps to contest the decision.
“Yes, it has been appealed,” he stated.
Kalu further disclosed that the party had filed an application for a stay of execution.
“We didn’t just file an appeal. We also filed stay of execution of this judgment,” he said.
However, his statement established only that an appeal and an application for a stay of execution had been filed. He did not confirm that the court had granted a stay.
When Okinbaloye asked whether the party had obtained any judicial relief specifically protecting Atiku’s nomination, Kalu rejected what he described as an incorrect interpretation of the judgment.
“You are getting it wrong. That is a wrong narrative being put out by the media in the country,” he responded.
He challenged those interpreting the judgment as invalidating the party’s candidates to identify the specific portion containing such an order.
“Show me any portion of the judgment that voids the candidate or the other candidates of ADC. There is no such pronouncement. People are only importing,” Kalu stated.
He maintained that the nomination of electoral candidates was undertaken by members of political parties rather than their national officers.
“The same judgment says that it is the members of the political party that do the nomination, not the national officers,” he said.
“So the people that elected Atiku Abubakar are members of the party at the ward level.”
Kalu also questioned Justice Lifu’s findings concerning the tenure of Nafiu Bala Gombe.
According to him, the judgment acknowledged that Gombe was elected into the ADC National Working Committee on October 12, 2022, for a four-year term.
He argued that Gombe’s tenure consequently expired on October 11, 2026, before the judgment was delivered on November 5, 2026.
The lawyer questioned how the court could nevertheless recognise Gombe’s tenure as subsisting.
“In natural effect, the tenure of Gombe had long expired on the 11th day of October 2026, and the court now gave the judgment that now affirmed that Nafiu Gombe is still a member of the NWC on the 5th day of November 2026, when by their own depositions, by the findings of the court, it elapsed on the 11th day of October 2026,” he argued.
Kalu maintained that the issue raised questions about the court’s reasoning.
“When they are scheming to remove some people from the ballot, God has a way of protecting the people whom he wants to include,” he stated.
Responding to questions about the possibility of Atiku’s nomination being invalidated before the election, Kalu reiterated that the Constitution clearly provides the grounds for qualification and disqualification of candidates.
He maintained that Justice Lifu’s judgment did not establish any such constitutional ground against Atiku.
He also argued that the court had failed to give adequate consideration to the Supreme Court’s decision in Jegede v. INEC.
“This is the law. But they didn’t advert their minds to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jegede,” Kalu stated.
When the presenter pointed out that there were two cases under consideration, the lawyer maintained that the legal position was straightforward.
“No, no, no. It’s very straightforward, and the Constitution is also clear on the qualification and disqualification of a candidate, and this does not fall into any of them,” he said.
Throughout the interview, Kalu maintained that the Federal High Court’s nullification of actions undertaken by David Mark’s leadership did not amount to an express order invalidating Atiku’s nomination or the nominations of other ADC candidates.
His submissions represented his interpretation of the judgment and the Supreme Court authority he cited, rather than a fresh judicial determination of the candidates’ eligibility.
The interview also featured the controversial remarks concerning Justice Lifu, which Kalu withdrew after Okinbaloye repeatedly objected to the use of personal language against a sitting judge.
Although the available captions refer to the judge not reading and include the expression “coconut judge”, the wording at that point is unclear and should not be treated as a fully verified verbatim quotation.
The ADC’s appeal and application for a stay of execution remain distinct from any judicial determination granting the relief sought.
