ADC leadership battle: Supreme Court hands victory to Mark, quashes lower court order

Nigeria’s apex court, the Supreme Court of Nigeria, on Thursday delivered a decisive ruling in the lingering leadership crisis within the African Democratic Congress (ADC), restoring the leadership of Mark and nullifying a controversial “status quo ante bellum” order issued during earlier proceedings.

In a lead judgment delivered by Justice Mohammed Garba, the court held that while courts possess inherent powers to issue preservative orders aimed at protecting the subject matter of litigation, such orders cannot subsist once a case has been fully heard and concluded.

The apex court emphasized that the directive to maintain the status quo ante bellum, essentially preserving the situation as it existed before the dispute, was valid only during the pendency of proceedings.

According to the court, once proceedings are “fully, faithfully, conclusively and finally concluded,” there remains nothing left for the court to preserve.

The ruling effectively nullified the earlier order that had sustained the status quo in the protracted dispute involving rival factions within the ADC, particularly over the legitimacy of party leadership, appointments, and congresses conducted by opposing groups.

Justice Garba explained that the trial court’s order was merely a procedural safeguard intended to prevent any party from taking actions that could undermine the court’s authority while the matter was still active.

However, he stressed that such judicial powers are strictly tied to ongoing proceedings and cannot extend beyond their conclusion.

The court also addressed the issue of the appeal’s competence, clarifying the application of Section 241(1)(f)(ii) of the 1999 Constitution. The provision, which allows appeals as of right in certain interlocutory decisions relating to injunctions, was deemed inapplicable in this case.

According to the court, the trial judge neither granted nor refused an injunction but only issued directives to preserve the subject matter pending the hearing.

As such, the appellants were required to obtain leave of court before filing their appeal, since the grounds raised were not purely based on points of law.

Justice Garba underscored that obtaining such leave is a “condition precedent” for the validity of an appeal, warning that any defect in the notice of appeal goes to the jurisdiction of the court and renders the entire process incompetent.

Despite these observations, the Supreme Court proceeded to examine the legality of the preservative orders issued by the lower courts.

It ultimately held that sustaining the status quo ante bellum after the conclusion of proceedings was both unnecessary and legally untenable.

Consequently, the apex court allowed the appeal, set aside the contentious order, and directed that all pending processes before the lower court be determined strictly in accordance with the law.

The judgment is expected to bring clarity to the leadership structure within the ADC and may signal a turning point in the party’s internal crisis, which has been marked by factional disputes and competing claims to authority.