Nigeriaâs Supreme Court on Thursday delivered a landmark ruling in the ongoing leadership dispute within the African Democratic Congress, voiding a âstatus quo ante bellumâ order that had kept the partyâs leadership question in limbo.
A five-member panel of the apex court, in a unanimous decision headed by Justice Mohammed Lawal Garba, held that the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, acted beyond its jurisdiction when it unilaterally issued the status quo order after it had already dismissed a case brought before it by one of the ADC factions. The court described issuing such an order in an appeal it had already dismissed as unnecessary, unwarranted and improper.
The ruling effectively cleared the way for the Senator David Mark-led faction of the ADC, setting aside lower court directives that had sustained the status quo arrangement amid the partyâs protracted internal crisis over leadership structure, including the validity of congresses and appointments made by rival groups.
The Supreme Court held that Markâs appeal succeeded in part, though it dismissed the aspect that challenged an ex parte order made by the Federal High Court for service of processes in a suit filed by aggrieved party members. It subsequently directed all factions to return to the trial court for continuation of hearing.
The ruling has direct implications for the Independent National Electoral Commission, which had on April 1 removed Mark and former Osun State Governor Rauf Aregbesola from its portal as ADC National Chairman and Secretary respectively, citing the Court of Appealâs judgment. INEC had at the time announced it would not recognise any of the warring factions pending resolution of the legal dispute.
On the question of jurisdiction, the Supreme Court found that Section 241(1)(f)(ii) of the 1999 Constitution, which grants parties a right of appeal in certain interlocutory decisions concerning injunctions, did not apply here. Justice Garba clarified that the trial judge had not granted or refused an injunction in the conventional sense, but had simply issued procedural directives to preserve the dispute pending hearing.
The court further held that since the grounds of appeal were not purely on points of law, the appellants were required to first obtain leave of court before filing, a condition precedent to the validity of the appeal. Failure to do so, the court noted, renders the entire appeal incompetent and deprives the court of jurisdiction to hear it.
Notwithstanding those procedural findings, the Supreme Court concluded that the preservative orders could not stand and directed that pending matters before the lower court be resolved in line with the law.