The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed the decision of the Court of Appeal, ordering parties to maintain the status quo ante bellum, in the leadership dispute within the ADC.
The apex court, however, maintained that the appellate court was right in ordering parties to return to the Federal High Court where a party leadership tussle exists.
On the issue of jurisdiction, the court faulted the appellant, noting that the apex court has the jurisdiction to entertain appeals from the lower court, citing section 233 of the 1999 Constitution.
It ordered parties in the African Democratic Congress (ADC) leadership tussle to return to the Federal High Court for the resolution of the matter.
In its unanimous judgment, it set aside the order of the Court of Appeal, which ordered parties in the suit to maintain the status quo ante bellum.
Justice Mohammed Garba, who delivered the lead judgment, held that the lower court was wrong to have raised the issue “somoto” (on its own, not requested by any party in the matter), and subsequently issued the status quo ante bellum order.
According to the judgment, it was wrong for the lower court to issue any preservative order in a case pending before the trial court.
“The directive made (status quo ante bellum) after striking out the appeal and issuing an accelerated hearing was unnecessary, unwarranted and improper,” Garba held.
The ex-Senate President had asked the court to grant an order staying the execution of the court of appeal’s ruling delivered on March 12 that dismissed his appeal in relation to the ongoing leadership dispute in the party.
A three-member panel of the Court of Appeal, led by Justice Uchechukwu Onyemenam, had upheld the objection raised by Bala Nafiu, insisting that the appeal was incompetent and that it was based on issues not reflected in the ruling of the trial court.
Mark had appealed a Sept. 4, 2025 ruling by Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court in Abuja that refused to grant some injunctive reliefs contained in an ex-parte application filed by Bala.
The dispute, which began as an internal transition disagreement in mid-2025, has now drawn in the courts and INEC, raising concerns over the ADC’s capacity to function as a viable opposition platform ahead of the 2027 general elections.
INEC’s decision on April 1, to withdraw recognition from both the Mark- and Bala-led factions, citing a subsisting Court of Appeal order to maintain the status quo ante bellum, has left the party without an officially recognised leadership structure.
The electoral body said it would not engage with any faction pending a final judicial determination, a position that could have far-reaching implications for the party’s participation in the 2027 polls.
The Mark-led faction insists it emerged through due process, citing a series of National Executive Committee (NEC) decisions in 2025, including the July 29 ratification of a caretaker leadership.
Relying on provisions of Article 13 of the ADC constitution, the group argues that the NEC is empowered to administer the party, implement convention decisions and establish interim structures where necessary.
It also cites Articles 17(3) and 17(4) to justify the transition process, maintaining that vacancies were properly filled through the appropriate executive mechanisms.
On eligibility, the faction contends that requirements such as the two-year membership rule under Article 9(4) were lawfully waived through NEC resolutions earlier in 2025 to accommodate coalition-building efforts.
It further argues that its initial recognition by INEC in September 2025, alongside its conduct of congresses and the April 14, National Convention, affirms its legitimacy.
