When Power Mongers Regroup: Inside the ADC Circus
Supreme Court nullifies status quo order in ADC leadership dispute, restores David Mark-led executive
The Supreme Court has set aside the order for status quo ante bellum made by the Court of Appeal in Abuja in the leadership dispute of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
The judgment effectively restores the David Mark-led executive following its delisting by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
In a unanimous verdict on Thursday, a five-member panel led by Justice Mohammed Lawal Garba held that the appeal court’s order was unnecessary.
The court subsequently allowed the appeal and nullified the order sustaining the status quo ante bellum in the dispute involving rival factions of the ADC leadership.
The judgment arose from the legal battle over the party’s leadership structure, including the legitimacy of appointments and congresses conducted by opposing factions.
Justice Garba explained that a directive maintaining the status quo ante bellum is essentially a preservative order intended to prevent parties from taking steps capable of foisting a fait accompli on the court while proceedings are ongoing.
However, such powers must be exercised only in relation to live proceedings. Once proceedings have been “fully, faithfully, conclusively and finally concluded,” there is “nothing left for that court to preserve.”
The apex court also addressed the competence of the appeal. Justice Garba held that Section 241(1)(f)(ii) of the 1999 Constitution, which provides for appeals as of right in certain interlocutory decisions relating to injunctions, did not apply here because the trial judge neither granted nor refused an injunction but merely issued procedural directives.
The court further held that since the grounds of appeal were not purely on points of law, leave of court was required as a “condition precedent” to the appeal’s validity.
The competence of a notice of appeal goes to the court’s jurisdiction, and once defective, the entire appeal becomes incompetent.
Despite those findings, the apex court examined the propriety of the preservative orders and held that sustaining the status quo ante bellum after the relevant proceedings had ended was unnecessary and legally unsustainable.
The Supreme Court consequently set aside the order and directed that pending processes before the lower court be determined in accordance with the law.
About The Author
