ADR Urges Supreme Court to Uphold Constitutional Integrity in ADC Leadership Dispute
The Alliance for Democratic Rights (ADR) has called on the Supreme Court to closely adhere to constitutional mandates as it navigates a leadership conflict within the African Democratic Congress (ADC). ADR leaders express concern that the credibility of the judiciary hangs in the balance during this pivotal moment.
In a statement made in Abuja, ADR leader Olinka Yusuf emphasized the significance of this judicial decision, labeling it as a “defining moment.” He urged the Supreme Court to reaffirm the constitutional limits on judicial intervention in political matters, rather than succumbing to what he termed overwhelming political pressure.
Yusuf articulated that the current issue transcends the ADC, raising fundamental questions about Nigeria’s commitment to the rule of law in its political framework. He cited Article 83 of the Election Law, which restricts judicial intervention in intra-party matters, thereby enhancing the autonomy of political parties to resolve leadership disputes internally.
Legal experts, however, have pointed out that while the electoral law preserves internal autonomy, Nigerian courts have historically maintained jurisdiction over cases involving constitutional violations, breaches of party constitutions, and principles of fair trial. They assert that the courts have a critical role in maintaining the rule of law, even within party structures.
Yusuf contended that the Supreme Court has articulated a clear stance over the years, affirming that leadership challenges within political parties are best addressed internally, without judicial entanglement. He raised concerns that the ongoing ADC crisis is fueled by external political interests, citing unverified claims that prominent political figures are backing rival factions within the party.
Specific allegations have surfaced, implicating former House Speaker Femi Gbajabiamila in attempts to influence party dynamics. Reports suggest that he directed Leke Abegide to disrupt one faction while offering support to Nafiu Bala in the leadership contest. However, these allegations remain unsubstantiated, and the individuals involved have not issued public statements regarding the claims.
In light of these contentious issues, a senior constitutional lawyer has remarked that such serious but unproven allegations should not be allowed to influence the judicial process. The lawyer emphasized that the Supreme Court operates strictly on legal grounds and evidence, not political narratives. Yusuf cautioned that any departure from established legal precedents could erode public confidence in the judiciary, threatening its independence especially as Nigeria approaches the critical 2027 elections.
In response to ADR’s position, an anonymous ADC faction member argued that the matters at hand represent clear violations of the party’s constitution, asserting that such issues cannot simply be resolved through internal processes. A party official clarified that their aim is not to let the courts dictate party control but to seek legal interpretation of violations and ensure justice is served.
The Supreme Court has previously reserved judgment on the ADC leadership dispute, which involves factions tied to notable political figures such as former Senate President David Mark, former Osun State Governor Rauf Aregbesola, and Nafiu Bala. As of now, a sentencing date remains to be announced.
