ADC, THE SUPREME COURT AND THE 2027 ELECTIONS
Nigeria’s Supreme Court has fixed tomorrow Wednesday 22nd April, 2026 for definitive hearing of the appeal regarding the leadership tussle for the national chairmanship of ADC between Senator David Mark and Nafiu Bala. This is a test case for multi-party democracy in Nigeria.
The court may hear the appeal by the ADC and adjourn for judgement or give verdict instantly.
This appeal involves two issues only. Legality or otherwise of INEC’s arbitrary action of removing, from its portal, the name of David Mark and Rauf Aregbsola as ADC National Chairman and National Secretary respectively, on the basis of internal dispute in the leadership of the party; including whether or not a court of law has jurisdiction over the issue. The second issue is what interpretation of status quo ante bellum means in the case.
1. Firstly on whether or not a court of law has jurisdiction in respect of matters related to internal affairs of political parties, definitively the answer is NO.
For over forty years, the Supreme Court has been shouting that courts have no jurisdiction to interfere in internal affairs of political parties. See the case of Onuoha vs Okafor (1983) 2 SCNLR 244 decided in 1983, forty three years ago.
This fell on deaf ears as the Supreme Court shouted itself hoarse while lower courts continue to defy the Supreme Court. Alhamdu lillah today, the National Assembly has put this matter beyond the realm of argument. By the provision of S. 83 (5) of the Electoral Act 2026, the current law in Nigeria on the subject is as detailed in this subsection which said;
“… no Court in Nigeria shall entertain jurisdiction over any suit or matter pertaining to the internal affairs of a political party”.
The National Assembly has codified the law and the law was signed by no less a person than president Tinubu who pretended all along to be a democrat that is now exposed for who he actually is- dictator.
So to compel complete compliance with the provision of subsection (5) of S. 83 (6) has been added to S. 83 which even put pain on those who may take the risk of going to court on matters pertaining to internal affairs of political parties. Subsection (6) therefore said, where such action is brought in negation of this provision
“(a) no interim or interlocutory injunction shall be entertained by the Court, but the Court shall suspend its ruling and deliver it at the stage of final judgment and shall give accelerated hearing to the matter.”
“(b) the Court shall, at the conclusion of the matter, impose costs of not less than ₦10,000,000.00 on the counsel who filed the action and not less than ₦10,000,000.00 on the Plaintiff/Applicant and in addition to payment to the Commission of any cost, including solicitors’ fees incurred by it where joined as a party.”
Unfortunately even with this provisions some courts still entertain matters pertaining to internal affairs of political parties. Otherwise I cannot understand why, for God’s sake, did the Federal High Court, Abuja entertained the matter regarding internal affairs of the ADC in this case. I believe the Supreme Court will say something about this tomorrow.
2. Secondly on what is status quo ante bellum in this case.
On this, Femi Falana, SAN human rights lawyer and Constitutional law expert has argued, and I agree with him, that status quo ante bellum in this case means “RETURNING to the leadership structure existing BEFORE the legal dispute”. Emphasis mine. According to him, this means “restoring the situation, not leaving it vacant”. This clearly means, according to Falana, “from David Mark’s assumption of leadership of the ADC”.
This opinion put forward by Falana, SAN was reinforced by Professor Itse Sagay, SAN the former Dean of law, Faculty of Law University of Benin and author of eleven books some of which became the greatest resource materials for Nigerian Law students during my time in the university. In supporting Femi Falana, SAN, Prof. Sagay, SAN said –
“The David Mark leadership is the status quo ante bellum; they are the recognised leadership. They took over from the former leadership, which voluntarily surrendered their leadership to David Mark. They are the status quo. So I don’t understand why INEC should de-recognise them”.
The opinions of the aforementioned two legal giants are enough for me. I will therefore not waste my time discussing any counter view because the contrary views I read are further from the truth.
Therefore in my humble opinion, the Federal High Court, Abuja has no jurisdiction to entertain any matter concerning the internal affairs of the ADC. The court’s decision was therefore done without jurisdiction. And we all know the consequences of making a decision by a court of law, without jurisdiction. Secondly, the meaning of status quo ante bellum in the case was as said Falana, SAN. That it was “from David Mark’s assumption of leadership of the ADC,” and that “the David Mark leadership is the status quo ante bellum” as affirmed by Prof. Itse Sagay, SAN.
Finally I believe there is no lawyer in this country that is in any doubt that the Supreme Court is not only a court of law but a policy-making body as well. Judgments of the court not only address law and justice but addresses significant political and social matters as well. There is therefore no reason why tomorrow Wednesday, the Court will not perform these functions.
All lovers of Nigeria, the rule of law and democracy know that by removing the names of David Mark and AbdulRauf Aregbosola from its portal, INEC was actuated not by law but under the influence of APC.
Barr Sadiq Ibrahim Dasin a fomer lawmaker, writes from Yola Adamawa State
