Legal practitioner and policy analyst, Liborous Oshoma, says the leadership crisis rocking the African Democratic Congress (ADC) is far from resolved, despite the Supreme Court’s ruling. According to him, the apex court merely redirected parties to the proper judicial path, while the substantive dispute over the party’s structure, convention, and authentic leadership remains unsettled. He spoke on TV Continental, with David Lawani monitoring
The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction to issue orders on a matter still pending before the trial court. What does this decision reveal about the limits of appellate courts in such cases?
The position I expressed previously was based on the legal reality that once the Court of Appeal determined that the matter before it was incompetent, its only lawful option was to direct the parties back to the High Court for an accelerated hearing. That should have been the end of its intervention. However, by proceeding further to impose a status quo ante bellum order and additional preservative directives on a matter it had already declared incompetent, the appellate court exceeded its constitutional authority. Once a court finds that it lacks jurisdiction, it becomes functus officio regarding that issue—it no longer possesses the power to make substantive or consequential pronouncements on the matter. That is precisely what the Supreme Court has now clarified. While courts may issue preservative orders under proper circumstances, such powers cannot extend to disputes no longer validly before them. The Court of Appeal therefore overreached itself. This ruling effectively sends all parties back to the Federal High Court, where the substantive issues ought to have been addressed from the outset. Importantly, other legal complications remain unresolved, including Justice Festus Abdullahi’s judgment nullifying the ADC convention held in Abuja and restraining the David Mark-led faction from interfering with state party structures. Additionally, the issue of the caretaker committee’s legality remains active, especially since the court noted that such an arrangement is not recognised under the party’s constitutional framework. The interlocutory injunction filed by Nafiu Raniu, seeking David Mark’s derecognition and his own recognition as the authentic party leader, is still pending before Justice Lifu. So, despite the Supreme Court’s intervention, this is only the beginning. The apex court merely corrected procedural overreach and established the proper legal pathway. The core leadership struggle within ADC remains unresolved.
What are the immediate implications of this ruling for INEC? Should the electoral body revert to previous positions or await the trial court’s decision?
INEC’s earlier actions were largely influenced by the Court of Appeal’s order to maintain the status quo ante bellum. With that order now effectively removed by the Supreme Court, the legal basis for INEC’s previous restraint no longer exists. At this point, the only subsisting judicial order affecting ADC’s structure is Justice Festus Abdullahi’s ruling, which nullified the Abuja convention and restricted interference with state executives. However, that judgment did not expressly remove David Mark’s faction from leadership or direct INEC to withdraw recognition from them. This distinction is crucial. INEC is therefore likely to continue recognising David Mark’s leadership for administrative purposes, pending further substantive rulings from the Federal High Court. What has been invalidated is the convention itself, not necessarily the faction’s interim administrative existence. In practical terms, INEC now has clearer legal space, but the commission must still closely monitor ongoing proceedings, as subsequent High Court decisions could significantly alter the current arrangement.
Does this mean David Mark’s leadership of the ADC can now breathe easier?
Yes, to a significant extent, David Mark’s camp can heave a temporary sigh of relief because the removal of the status quo ante bellum order eliminates a major legal obstacle that had constrained their operational legitimacy. However, this relief is only provisional. They must still confront the implications of Justice Abdullahi’s ruling, which nullified the convention that brought them into formal prominence, as well as the ongoing proceedings before Justice Lifu concerning interlocutory reliefs and substantive leadership claims. While they currently remain in a more favourable position than before, their leadership remains vulnerable to future judicial outcomes. Their real challenge lies ahead in defending both their authority and the legal foundation of their emergence within the party.
The Supreme Court also ordered an accelerated hearing at the Federal High Court. Realistically, how quickly can this matter be resolved, and what should Nigerians expect?
The High Court can move swiftly if all parties cooperate. There is already an interlocutory injunction application before the court, and timelines for written submissions can be significantly shortened—seven days, three days, or even shorter—depending on the court’s discretion and counsel’s readiness. The court may choose first to determine the interlocutory issues or proceed directly to the substantive originating summons. A ruling on preliminary issues could emerge within weeks if expedited aggressively. However, Nigerians must understand that even after a High Court decision, appeals will almost certainly follow to the Court of Appeal and, eventually, to the Supreme Court. That means the broader conflict could persist for months, if not longer. In essence, while immediate procedural rulings may come quickly, the comprehensive political and legal battle is only beginning. Time is also a major factor because state leadership tenures reportedly expire by May 13. ADC must therefore act rapidly to stabilise its internal structures, conduct valid congresses where necessary, and meet INEC deadlines. This is a race against both judicial and political timelines.
Does this Supreme Court decision establish any major precedent for political party disputes, particularly concerning judicial overreach?
Absolutely. This ruling reinforces a critical constitutional principle: courts must operate strictly within the limits of their jurisdiction. There has been significant public debate over judicial interference in party affairs. Still, no law can completely exclude courts from political disputes involving constitutional breaches, party constitutional violations, or electoral law infractions. The judiciary retains oversight whenever due process is threatened. What this judgment clarifies is not that courts cannot intervene, but that such intervention must be legally grounded. For example, courts have previously nullified party conventions conducted in defiance of subsisting orders, as seen in PDP-related cases. Similarly, they have upheld internal disciplinary measures when properly executed within party constitutional frameworks. Thus, this decision sharpens the boundary between legitimate judicial intervention and judicial overreach. It sends a strong message that appellate courts cannot manufacture authority where jurisdiction is absent, while simultaneously affirming that political parties cannot hide under “internal affairs” when their actions violate constitutional or statutory provisions. Ultimately, the judgment strengthens procedural discipline in Nigeria’s democratic and judicial processes.
