ADC Chieftain Petitions Chief Judge Over Alleged Bias In Suit Before Justice Omotosho

El Ameen Ibrahim

The National Welfare Officer of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Nkemakolam Ukandu, has petitioned the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Abuja Division, seeking the reassignment of a pending case to another judge over what he described as “manifest bias” and a likelihood of unfair hearing.

Ukandu, who is the sixth defendant in the case, made the request through his counsel, Kalu Kalu Agwu, in respect of suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1331/2025 — Dubem Kachukwu & 4 Ors v. Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) & 5 Ors — currently before Justice James Omotosho of Court No. 7.

In a motion on notice filed pursuant to Order 49 Rule 1 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019, Ukandu is asking the Chief Judge to transfer the matter to another court. Alternatively, he is seeking “an order staying further proceedings in the suit pending the decision of the Chief Judge” on his reassignment request.

In a letter dated October 31, Ukandu explained that his application was necessitated by what he termed “manifest bias or grave likelihood of bias leading to breach of fair hearing” before Justice Omotosho.

According to him, he was joined in the suit on October 3, following a court order directing the plaintiffs’ counsel to amend the originating process to reflect the inclusion of the sixth defendant and to serve all parties before the next hearing date. The matter was then adjourned to October 23 for hearing.

However, Ukandu stated that the plaintiffs’ counsel was unable to serve him the amended originating process until October 22 — just one day before the scheduled hearing — a fact which the counsel reportedly informed the court about.

The ADC official said his counsel duly notified the court that, under the Rules of the Federal High Court, he was entitled to 30 days to file a response to the plaintiffs’ amended originating process.

He was, however, taken aback when, “without any application for abridgement of time by any counsel in the matter,” Justice Omotosho “suo moto abridged the time within which the 6th defendant’s counsel should file his defense to the plaintiffs’ originating process.”

According to Ukandu, instead of the statutory 30 days, his counsel was given only seven days to respond — “including Saturday and Sunday, which makes it impossible for the 6th defendant’s counsel to respond appropriately.”

He further contended that the matter in question “is not a time-bound case that requires such urgency as ordered by the judge.”

His counsel, Agwu, therefore argued that the abridgment of time amounts to a violation of his client’s constitutional right to fair hearing, as it deprived him of adequate opportunity to prepare and file his defense.

Ukandu’s motion, now before the office of the Chief Judge, is seeking administrative intervention to ensure that the case proceeds before “an impartial tribunal” and in accordance with the tenets of justice.