In a case involving an ADC case at the Federal High Court, Abuja, Nkemakolam Ukandu, a leader of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), has taken the National Judicial Council (NJC), Justice John Tsoho, chief judge of the FHC, and Joyce Abdulmalik, a judge of the Abuja division of the FHC, to court on charges of corruption and bias.
Justices Tsoho and Abdulmalik are being investigated for alleged corruption and bias in the hearing of a case marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1331/2025 between Hon. Dumebi Kachikwu and four others, and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and five others. This investigation is being pursued by Ukandu, the National Welfare Secretary of the ADC, through a suit that was instituted in Abuja. The NJC is the first defendant in the case.
In the lawsuit that was filed on March 3, the plaintiff is also requesting an injunction to prevent Justice Abdulmalik from preside over the same lawsuit until the plaintiff’s petition to the NJC is heard and decided.
Abdulmalik is being asked by Ukandu to step out from the case “on grounds of manifest bias and grave likelihood of bias against the plaintiff,” according to her request for a second ruling.
Legal practitioner Kalu Kalu Agu of Abuja filed the complaint on behalf of the plaintiff with the case number FHC/ABJ/CS/445/26.
The plaintiff asserted in a 52-paragraph statement of claim that he was added as the sixth defendant to the lawsuit designated FHC/ABJ/CS/1331/2025 on October 3, 2025, after submitting an application.
From first to fifth, the plaintiffs in the complaint are Dumebi Kachikwu, Adikwu Elias, Etimbuk Umoh, Muhammad Khala, and Alakum William. From first to fifth, the defendants are INEC, ADC, Chief Ralph Nwosu, Senator David Mark, and Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola.
According to Ukandu, the issue began on October 23, 2025, when the judge severely reprimanded his counsel for failing to respond to the originating summons that had been served on him less than 24 hours earlier by the plaintiffs’ counsel. As a result, the court reduced the response time from 30 days to seven, which includes Saturday and Sunday.
“Because he was unhappy with the decision, the claimant sued the second defendant, claiming that the judge had shown bias and that there was a serious chance that the court would rule against him. He asked that his case be transferred to a different judge.
After then, “the claimant entered the appeal at the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, compiled and transmitted the Record of Appeal, and thereafter filed a Notice of Appeal.”
He went on to say that it was bad that the Chief Judge had told the court to hear the case even though an appeal was pending at the Court of Appeal. This made the claimant sue the second defendant in two cases, one of which was “wherein the 2nd defendant was directed to maintain status quo in Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/1331/2025: Dumebi Kachikwu and four others vs. INEC and five others.” (No: FCT/HC/CV/4684/2025: Nkemakolam Ukandu vs. Justice James Tsoho and two others).
The second defendant in Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/1331/2025 was ordered by the High Court of the FCT to maintain status quo, but Ukandu claimed that the second defendant disobeyed this order and reassigned the case to the third defendant anyway, even though the matter was still pending.
Even though the plaintiff had taken judicial notice of the pending appeal, the lawsuit at the FCT High Court, and the “order endorsed ex-facie the said writ of summons,” the third defendant began presidencing and hearing the case on January 30 without informing the plaintiff’s lawyer, Mr. Kalu Agu.
The plaintiff’s counsel was supposedly served with a certificate of service in the 3rd defendant’s file on January 30, 2026, by the court bailiff, according to the statement of claim. The 3rd defendant then proceeded to hear the matter on January 30, 2026, based on the certificate.
One of his requests for relief is for the NJC to be formally established so that it can “to investigate complaints against judicial officers and mete out sanctions accordingly.”
On top of that, he’s asking the court to look into the claims of corruption and obvious bias levelled against the second and third defendants in this case (FHC/ABJ/CS/1331/2025). He is also asking for a second injunction barring the third defendant from serving as the case’s judge.
Until the hearing and decision of the plaintiff’s petition to the 1st defendant against the 2nd and 3rd defendants, an order of injunction prohibiting the 3rd defendant from continuing to preside over Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/1331/2025 is issued.
“The court has issued an order directing the first defendant to recuse herself from the case FHC/ABJ/CS/1331/2025, on the grounds that there is clear bias or a strong probability of bias on the side of the first and second defendants against the claimant.”
At this time, the lawsuit’s hearing date is still up in the air.