Dino Melaye: Denies Comments on Justice Lifu Illness Claims

• Dino Melaye denied making any comments about Federal High Court Justice Peter Lifu's health, refuting claims by Buba Galadima.
• Galadima had criticized African Democratic Congress members for allegedly celebrating Justice Lifu's reported illness, linking Melaye to discussions about the judge.
• The controversy is rooted in Justice Lifu's judgment that set aside resolutions from the ADC's July 29, 2025, National Executive Committee meeting regarding national officers.
• Galadima warned that if Justice Lifu is unavailable, the ADC's appeal could be indefinitely delayed because only the presiding judge can sign records of proceedings.
• This highlights a procedural concern in the Nigerian appeal process where a judge's absence can create significant bottlenecks for litigants.

This situation highlights a critical aspect of judicial continuity and its direct impact on the timely administration of justice.

Former Kogi West Senator, Dino Melaye, has publicly refuted claims made by elder statesman Buba Galadima, denying that he ever commented on the health status of Federal High Court judge, Justice Peter Lifu. Melaye expressed his astonishment on his X account last Saturday, stating that he was "extremely shocked" to hear Galadima attribute such remarks to him. He firmly asserted that he had made no statements regarding Justice Lifu's health.

In his rebuttal, Melaye suggested that advanced age might be impacting Galadima's memory. He remarked, "Old age must be catching up with Buba Galadima. Now I know you cant cure old age, you can only manage it," underscoring his disbelief at being implicated in discussions about Justice Peter Lifu's health. This exchange highlights a public disagreement between the two prominent figures over the alleged comments concerning the judge's condition.

The controversy stems from a judgment delivered by Federal High Court Justice Lifu concerning a leadership dispute within the African Democratic Congress (ADC). This ruling specifically addressed and set aside resolutions passed during the party's 99th National Executive Committee meeting, which took place on July 29, 2025. These resolutions had led to Senator David Mark and former Minister of Interior, Rauf Aregbesola, being named as national officers of the party.

Furthermore, Justice Lifu's judgment included an injunction preventing the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognizing or engaging with the individuals affected by the ruling as national officers of the ADC. The African Democratic Congress has since indicated its firm intention to challenge this judgment through the established appeal process, setting the stage for further legal proceedings.

Buba Galadima, a chieftain of the Nigeria Democratic Congress, had earlier criticized members of the African Democratic Congress for their reported reactions to Justice Peter Lifu's illness. Speaking on African Independent Television last Wednesday, Galadima accused ADC members of a lack of intelligence, particularly in light of their apparent celebration of the judge's reported ill health. He mentioned Dino Melaye in the context of the ADC obtaining a certified true copy of the judgment against them.

Galadima questioned the wisdom of ADC members celebrating the judge's reported illness, arguing that such an event could inadvertently jeopardize their own appeal efforts. He specifically highlighted a critical procedural bottleneck: if Justice Lifu were to be absent from the country, perhaps for medical treatment in Europe, the records of proceedings from his judgment could not be signed by any other judge. This situation, Galadima contended, would effectively prevent the ADC from pursuing its appeal until Justice Lifu's return, thereby creating a significant delay in the Nigerian appeal process.

The procedural concern articulated by Buba Galadima underscores a significant potential vulnerability within the Nigerian appeal process, particularly when a judge becomes unavailable. His argument emphasizes that the absence of the specific presiding judge, Justice Peter Lifu, could create an insurmountable hurdle for litigants seeking to appeal a judgment, as only that judge can authenticate the necessary records of proceedings. This scenario could lead to indefinite delays, effectively stalling the entire appeal until the judge's return.

This situation highlights a critical aspect of judicial continuity and its direct impact on the timely administration of justice. The inability of another judicial officer to sign crucial documents in the absence of the original judge presents a potential bottleneck that could prolong legal battles and frustrate parties seeking redress. Such a procedural constraint could have far-reaching implications for case management and the overall efficiency of the Nigerian judicial system, particularly in high-stakes litigation like the ADC leadership dispute judgment.

This article highlights a procedural concern regarding the appeal process in Nigeria, specifically the potential for delays if a judge becomes unavailable and only they can sign records of proceedings. Lawyers should be aware of this potential bottleneck and its implications for case management and client advice, particularly in high-stakes litigation where judicial continuity is critical for timely appeals.

Source: Original reporting via PUNCH