Supreme Court Ruling Brings Relief to ADC Supporters
Supporters of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) expressed their relief on Thursday following a significant ruling from the Supreme Court. The court delivered two crucial decisions: first, it directed the contesting parties to return to the Federal High Court to hear the suit initiated by Hon Nafiu Bala Gombe. Second, it concluded that the Court of Appeal had overstepped by granting a “quiet order” preservation order in an appeal by Senator David Mark, who challenged the jurisdiction of the High Court in this matter. ADC leaders hailed the ruling as a triumph for democracy, justice, and the rule of law.
Internal Strife and Legal Challenges
The troubles for the ADC began last year as several opposition politicians joined the party. Under the leadership of Ralph Nwosu, the national executives of the ADC resigned, leading to Mark’s appointment as interim committee chairman and Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola as national secretary in July 2025. Two months later, Gombe, a former national vice-chairman, filed an ex-parte application with the Federal High Court, seeking recognition as the legitimate acting speaker despite Nwosu’s resignation. He also requested the court to prevent Mark’s committee from presenting itself as the national officers. While the court rejected Gombe’s motion, it required Mark to submit a defense.
The Jurisdiction Debate
In a previous ruling, the Supreme Court had indicated that the internal governance of political parties should remain beyond judicial review. Consequently, Mark appealed to the Court of Appeal to contest the jurisdiction of the High Court. He maintained that the directive to file a defense also misapplied—asserting that the matter was continuing in the High Court. However, the Court of Appeal deemed his appeal premature and affirmed the need for stability during ongoing proceedings.
INEC’s Controversial Interpretation
Amid these developments, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), led by law professor Joash Ampitan, made a contentious move by interpreting the “calm status quo” as a mandate to revoke recognition of Mark’s national committee. This interpretation appeared to contradict the Court of Appeal’s intention to maintain order and avoid causing disruptions that could lead to a leadership vacuum. The Supreme Court previously defined “status quo” as the situation preceding any disputes, solidifying Mark’s position as chairman on the day Gombe rejected resignation.
Supreme Court’s Clarification
Dissatisfied with the Court of Appeal’s ruling, Mark escalated the matter to the Supreme Court with similar arguments regarding the High Court’s jurisdiction over the internal affairs of the party. The Supreme Court confirmed that the High Court must first assess its jurisdiction before proceeding further. Notably, contrary to some narratives circulating on social media, the Supreme Court did not reinstate Mark’s leadership or make any directive regarding INEC but emphasized that the High Court needed to make a crucial jurisdictional ruling.
Another Case Against INEC’s Actions
In a related matter, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik issued a ruling on Wednesday, preventing INEC from recognizing or participating in any state congress held under the interim leadership of ADC. She reaffirmed the validity of the state working committee’s four-year terms and stressed that the National Management Committee led by Mark lacked the authority to appoint state management committees. This ruling can have significant implications for the ongoing struggles within the ADC.
Implications for ADC’s Future
The ADC’s situation remains precarious, especially if the High Court adopts a stance similar to that of Justice Abdulmalik in the Gombe case. The Supreme Court’s earlier ruling, while generally prohibiting judicial interference in internal party matters, does allow for exceptions regarding constitutional violations. This precise framework implies that courts can intervene when the party’s constitution is not upheld, reflecting a nuanced understanding of political governance.
The enthusiasm expressed by ADC supporters highlights a profound commitment to democracy and political diversity among Nigerians. In a politically competitive landscape, the quest for improved alternatives resonates deeply with citizens. The ruling from the Supreme Court offers the ADC a temporary reprieve, though uncertainty looms as the cases progress within the High Court. With an election deadline approaching and substantial legal battles ahead, the future of the ADC remains firmly in question.
