Supreme Court: ADC Leadership Dispute Remains In The Cloud – Lawyer

By Onoja Baba, Nigeria 

A lawyer, Onogwu Muhammed has said that the leadership crisis rocking the African Democratic Party (ADC) remains in a state of uncertainty following the Supreme Court’s decision to set aside the Court of Appeal’s order directing parties to maintain the status quo ante bellum.

In a detailed legal analysis he provided on Friday via his social media handle, Muhammed, explained the sequence of events and the implications of the apex court’s ruling delivered on Thursday.

According to Muhammed, the crisis began when Nafiu Gombe approached the Federal High Court in Abuja seeking an order to restrain the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising the David Mark-led faction as the authentic leadership of the ADC. The trial court refused to grant the ex parte application and ordered that the matter be heard on notice.

David Mark responded by filing an interlocutory appeal at the Court of Appeal, challenging the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to entertain the suit. The appellate court dismissed the appeal as premature and an abuse of court process. It fined the Mark-led faction ₦2 million in costs, ordered an accelerated hearing of the substantive suit, and directed parties to maintain the status quo ante bellum pending the final determination of the case.

Following the Court of Appeal’s order, INEC withdrew recognition of the David Mark-led executive from its official portal.

Dissatisfied, David Mark approached the Supreme Court. In its ruling, the apex court held that the Court of Appeal lacked the jurisdiction to grant a preservative order of status quo ante bellum on a matter that was still pending before the trial court. The Supreme Court therefore vacated the status quo order and remitted the case back to the Federal High Court for expeditious hearing and determination.

Muhammed noted that the substantive rights of the parties can only be conclusively determined by the Federal High Court after a full trial on the merits. He described David Mark’s appeal to the Court of Appeal as a procedural misstep, arguing that it was filed when the trial court had not yet made any final or appealable decision.

“In all of this, the leadership dispute remains in the cloud. The settled legal position is that the substantive rights and obligations of the parties can only be conclusively determined by the Federal High Court upon a full trial on the merits.

“Regrettably, David Mark’s fishing expedition to the appellate court amounts to a procedural misstep. It is legally questionable, given that the trial court had not made any final or appealable decision against him at the time of filing the interlocutory appeal, thereby raising serious concerns as to its competence and necessity,’ Muhammed said.

The lawyer warned that the protracted legal battle could become a deliberate delay tactic that may cause the party to run foul of statutory timelines ahead of party primaries. He added that, in the absence of any subsisting court order nullifying his position, David Mark arguably remains the Chairman de facto, even though his leadership is currently under judicial scrutiny.

Muhammed stressed that criticisms accusing the Supreme Court of bias are misplaced, as the apex court cannot assume original jurisdiction over a matter still pending at the trial court.

The fate of the ADC leadership now rests with the Federal High Court, raising concerns over whether the court can resolve the matter within the limited time available before the commenc

ement of party primaries.