By Bolanle Olabimtan
The supreme court judgement on the leadership crisis in the African Democratic Congress (ADC) has generated mixed interpretations and confusion about who is in charge of the party.
However, rather than settle the dispute, the apex court’s decision focused on a procedural misstep and sent the case back to where it began.
To understand the case in its entirety and what the supreme court judgement means, it is important to start from the beginning.
FEDERAL HIGH COURT
On September 2, 2025, Nafiu Bala, former vice chairman of the ADC, approached a federal high court in Abuja (Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025), seeking to stop David Mark, former senate president, and his faction from parading themselves as leaders of the party.
Bala listed the ADC, Mark, Rauf Aregbesola (national secretary), the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), and Ralph Nwosu, the party’s founder and former national chairman, as defendants.
He also sought an order to restrain INEC from recognising them and to compel recognition of himself as acting national chairman.
He further filed motions seeking to stop the party from holding meetings, congresses, or conventions pending the determination of the suit.
The motion ex parte was heard on September 4, 2025, and Emeka Nwite, the trial judge, directed that the respondents, including INEC, be put on notice to show cause why the motion ex parte should not be granted.
This means the motion ex parte was neither granted nor refused.
COURT OF APPEAL
Dissatisfied with the interim ruling, Mark filed an appeal challenging the jurisdiction of the federal high court to continue to hear Bala’s suit.
However, on March 12, 2026, the court of appeal dismissed Mark’s case in its entirety, holding that it was incompetent and unmeritorious.
A three-member panel of the appellate court, led by Uchechukwu Onyemenam, found that there was no substantive ruling by the federal high court on the ex parte application, as the trial judge merely ordered that parties be put on notice.
As such, there was no valid decision upon which an appeal could properly be anchored.
The court further faulted Mark for relying on an enrolled order rather than the actual proceedings and ruling of the trial court, noting that only the judge’s pronouncement constitutes the authentic record of the court.
The court also held that the appeal arose from an interlocutory ruling, for which Mark failed to obtain the required leave before approaching the appellate court.
On the issue of jurisdiction, the court of appeal noted that the question was still pending before the federal high court and could not be determined at the appellate level at that stage, describing the appeal as premature.
Having dismissed the appeal, the court issued preservatory orders to safeguard the subject matter of the dispute.
The court directed the parties to maintain the status quo ante bellum and to refrain from any action that could undermine the proceedings before the trial court.
On April 1, INEC announced that it would no longer recognise the factions of the ADC led by Mark or Bala, following its review of the court of appeal judgement.
SUPREME COURT
On further appeal to the apex court, Mark, among other things, argued that he had a lawful right to proceed with the appeal without seeking leave of the trial court.
He also raised the issue of jurisdiction, arguing that the trial court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain Bala’s suit.
In a unanimous judgement delivered on Thursday, a five-member panel of the supreme court held that the appeal fails in part and succeeds in part.
In the first part, the apex court agreed with the court of appeal’s verdict that the appellant (Mark) ought to have sought leave of the trial court before filing an appeal, since the substantive issues before the trial court had not yet been heard and determined.
“I find the court below to be right that the appellant, in whose favour the order of the federal high court was made, ought to have sought the leave of the court before appeal…” the supreme court held.
Mohammed Garba, who read the lead judgment, held that since the appellant failed to meet the condition precedent for filing the appeal, it robbed the appellate court and, by extension, the supreme court of jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
The lead justice also held that the issue opposing jurisdiction of the trial court cannot be determined by the supreme court since it is already the subject of a pending preliminary objection, which has not yet been determined at the high court.
“I therefore endorse the decision by the court below upholding the first respondent’s preliminary objection to the competence of the appellant’s appeal and an order striking it out on that ground,” Garba said.
Consequently, the court ordered the parties to go back and continue with the suit pending at the federal high court.
On the second issue, which succeeded, the supreme court said the court of appeal overstepped its boundaries by asking parties to maintain the status quo.
“Status quo ante bellum”, in legal terms, refers to restoring the condition of the position of things as they were before the dispute arose.
The court reasoned that once the appeal was dismissed, the court of appeal had become functus officio — meaning it had exhausted its authority in the case and could not make further substantive orders.
The supreme court consequently set aside the status quo order, describing it as “unnecessary, unwarranted and improper”.
“The court was wrong to have made a purported preservatory order suo moto in respect of a proceeding pending before the lower court, as that power belongs to that trial court, which shall be in control of proceedings in the matter when it is returned to it by the appellate court either for continuation, hearing or retrial as the case may be,” the court ruled.
DOES THIS MEAN DAVID MARK’S FACTION HAS WON?
The verdict of the supreme court does not mean victory for the Mark-led faction or even any faction.
While the removal of the status quo order may give the Mark-led faction some breathing room, the supreme court did not affirm any leadership.
The most important question of who legitimately controls the ADC remains unresolved.
The outcome will now depend on the decision of the trial court after full proceedings.
After the matter is resolved at the trial court, the losing faction would likely appeal the verdict back up to the supreme court.
Meanwhile, INEC has updated its website, listing Mark as the national chairman of the ADC and Aregbesola as national secretary
Culled from TheCable
News4 years ago
Privacy5 years ago
News5 years ago
News5 years ago
Opinion5 years ago
News5 years ago
Sports4 years ago