Supreme Court restored ADC leadership and voided PDP convention, triggering sharp reactions, and uncertainty across opposition politics.
Relief and hope came the way of millions of supporters of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), on Thursday, after the Supreme Court set aside an order that threatened the presence of the party in the 2027 general election.
The apex court, in a unanimous judgment, held that the order of “status quo ante bellum” issued on March 12, 2026, by the Court of Appeal, Abuja, “was unnecessary, unwarranted and improper”.
In another stroke, it was end of the road for a faction of the PeoplesDemocratic Party (PDP) led by Governor Seyi Makinde of Oyo State as the same apex court nullified the convention it organised last November in Ibadan.
The court in a split judgment of three-to-two voided the convention that produced the Tanimu Turaki-led faction on the grounds that it was conducted in blatant disobedience of a valid court order.
The David Mark-led leadership of the ADC and the Turaki-led faction of the PDP had approached the apex court to challenge the judgments of the Court of Appeal entered against them.
They predicated their separate cases on the grounds that the cases in which judgment was entered against them were purely internal matters of political parties, which courts ought not to entertain.
They therefore prayed the apex court to reverse the decisions of the lower courts for being unjusticiable.
But, in the separate judgments delivered in the matter by the supreme court, the appeal of the Mark-led ADC succeeded in part, that of the Turaki-led faction failed as the majority judgment of the apex court, held that the convention stood nullified because it was conducted despite a court order restraining it.
In the unanimous judgment delivered by Justice Mohammed Garba, the Supreme Court held that the appellate court was right when it dismissed the appeal of David Mark for lacking in merit and also ordered accelerated hearing at the trial court.
Garba, however, faulted the appellate court for going ahead to issue a preservative order, after striking out the appeal for being incompetent.
The Supreme Court further berated the the appellate court for raising the issue of preserving the res (subject matter of the case) on its own (somoto) and then issuing an order directing parties to maintain status quo ante bellum.
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), had last month removed the names of David Mark and other national executive officer of the ADC from its portal as leaders of the party.
The action of the electoral umpire by implication robbed the ADC the chances of participating or fielding candidates at next year’s general election.
Among the reliefs sought by Mark at the apex court included an order setting aside the appellate court order directing the maintenance of status quo ante bellum.
Justice Garba, who delivered the lead judgment held that the lower court was wrong to have raised the issue “somoto” (on its own, not requested by any party in the matter), and subsequently issued the status quo ante bellum order.
According to the judgment, it was wrong for the lower court to issue any preservative order in a case pending before the trial court.
“The directive made (status quo ante bellum) after striking out the appeal and issuing an accelerated hearing was unnecessary, unwarranted and improper”, Garba held, adding: “It is hereby set aside”.
Having resolved issue one and two against the appellant, Justice Garba, also made an order directing the case back to the trial court, for continuation of hearing.
According to the apex court, the trial court neither granted nor refused the order of interlocutory injunction restraining INEC from recognising the Mark leadership nor restrained the Mark-led leadership from parading themselves as leaders of the ADC, but held that the respondents should appear before the court to show cause why they should not be restrained.
But in the case of the PDP, the majority judgment which voided the Ibadan convention dwelled more on the disobedience of the appellants.
Justice Stephen Adah, who delivered the lead majority judgment disclosed that upon their perusal of the record of appeal, the apex court found the issue of disobedience which was not disputed by any party in the appeal.
According to the apex court, rather than appealing the judgment of the trial court, which restrained them from proceeding with the November 15 and 16 National Convention, the appellants “went forum shopping” to get a favourable order from a court of coordinate jurisdiction, and only appealed the judgment after the convention has been held.
While stressing that orders of court remained binding until set aside, Justice Adah held that, “When a party refuses to obey the orders of a court, he must not be heard by the court”, adding that this type of abuse of court was unpardonable.
The apex court held that once abuse was established, the court was bound to invoke its inherent powers, adding that the court would not lend its machinery to a litigant, who violated the valid orders of a court.
While holding that the appellant abused court process in conducting the Ibadan convention, Justice Adah held that the conduct of the November 15 and 16, 2015 convention in violation of an order of court was therefore “null and void.
“Having resolved the sole issue issue against the appellant, the appeal lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. The cross appeal is also lacking in merit and it is also dismissed,” she stressed.
However, in the minority judgment delivered by Justice Haruna Tsammaniand Abubakar Umar, the apex court held that the case before the trial court was strictly an internal matter of the PDP, which the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain.
While agreeing with the majority judgment that it was wrong of the appellant to have disobeyed the judgment of the trial court, Tsammani stated that the action was not enough ground to dismiss the appeal, which the trial court ought not to have entertained in the first instance.
Tsammani faulted his colleagues for raising the issue of disobedience on its own, when none of the parties raised it.
He recalled that the apex court in several decisions has warned against raising issues (somoto) not conversed by any party, adding that the appellant was not giving the opportunity to defend itself over the alleged disobedience.
He, accordingly, allowed the appeal, stressing that the Federal High Court lacked the necessary jurisdiction to entertain the suit in the first place.
“Since, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter, the suit is accordingly struck out,” Tsammani held.
Justice Umar also pointed out that the issue of convention and congresses including party leadership were internal matters of political parties, which no court has jurisdiction.
“The issue has been resolved severally by this court that they are not justiciable,” he stated, adding that contrary to the position of the trial court, the mat-ter was not against INEC.
“The suit did not disclose any dereliction, nor complain was made against INEC …it did not disclose any cause of action against INEC,” he said.
According to the minority judgment, the law permitted court to only intervene in issues bordering on primary or post election matters, stressing that the issues of the sale of nomination forms to aspirant did not fall within the categories of issues that a court could entertain.
“I am unable to go with the majority judgment. The appeal has merit and should be allowed. The Federal High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Since the trial court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter, the suit is accordingly struck out,” he said.
Speaking further, Justice Tsammani urged his colleagues to allow political parties and politicians “fall and rise with each experience,” and without the hand of the court.
He warned that if the court continued to indulge politicians, they would continue to use the court as a tool to out-do themselves.
The five-member panel led by Justice Mohammed Garba had last Wednesday, shortly after lawyers representing the ADC and PDP in the different appeals, adopted their processes as their briefs of argument for and against the appeals, announced that judgment has been reserved to a date to be communicated to parties.
The appellate court had in a ruling in the appeal filed by the Mark-led leadership against the ruling of a Federal High Court, Abuja, last month, ordered status quo ante bellum.
Based on the ruling of the appellate court, INEC withdrew the recognition accorded the Mark-led faction as authentic leadership of the ADC.
Gombe, had last year dragged the Mark-led leadership before Justice Emeka Nwite, to challenge the leadership of the ADC led by Mark.
He had among others sought an order restraining the Mark-led leadership from parading itself as leader of the ADC, insisting that he remained the authentic leader of the party, following the resignation of the then chairman and other members of the executive.
Mark had been announced chairman of an interim national executive of the ADC, at a meeting in Abuja, last year and his chairmanship substantiated at the convention of the party held recently.
But Justice Nwite declined to issue a restraining order against the Mark-led leadership and instead ordered the applicant to put the defendants on notice.
Reacting, Mark approached the appellate court to challenge the jurisdiction of Nwite to entertain the suit by Gombe in the first place.
While insisting that the trial court cannot entertain the suit suit by Gombe, for being an internal matter of the ADC, Mark also argued that the trial court became functus officio when he refused the grant of the restraining order against the Mark-led leadership.
But the appellate court, in its judgment last month, dismissed Mark’s appeal and returned the case to the trial court.
While the appellate court had ordered accelerated hearing in the matter, it went ahead to order status quo ante bellum, an order which INEC acted upon to de-recognise the Mark leadership as well as remove their names from its portal.
Displeased, Mark approached the Supreme Court to set aside aside the ruling of the appellate court.
Only a few days ago, the ADC pleaded with the Supreme Court to deliver its judgment in the appeal within the next three days.
The ADC, in a letter to the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice KudiratKekere-Ekun, claimed that failure of the apex court to deliver judgment within the above period, would jeopardise the chances of the party in the 2027 general election, as well as dash the hope of millions of Nigerians intending to vote for the ADC and its candidates at the general election slated for early January, next year.
In the letter dated April 28, the party’s lead counsel, Mr Shuaibu Aruwa, SAN, recalled that the apex court “graciously heard expeditiously on April 22, 2026 and judgment was thereafter reserved to a date to be communicated by the court.”
In addition, the ADC drew the attention of the CJN to INEC’s timetable for the 2027 general election and the activities in readiness which it claimed have already commenced.
The Turaki faction of the PDP had also approached the apex court to challenge the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which had nullified the convention for being held in disobedience of a valid order of court.
Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja, had last year in a judgment restrained then Ambassador Iliya Damagum-led National Executive Committee of the PDP from proceeding with the convention slated for November 15 and 16, 2026, in Ibadan Oyo State.
Justice Lifu had in his judgment ordered that the convention should not hold until an aspirant to the office of national chairman, Alhaji Sule Lamido, was given the opportunity to purchase interest and nomination forms to enable him participate in the convention for the election of national officers.
The party, however, went ahead to conduct the convention in disregard to the orders of the court.
The PDP predicated its action on the grounds that the court of Justice Lifulacked the jurisdiction to stop the convention as the issue brought before him was an internal matter of the PDP, which no court has jurisdiction to delve into.
The appellate court, in its judgment last month, disagreed that the issue at the trial court was an internal affairs of a political parties which courts could not entertain.
The three-member panel of the appellate court subsequently nullified the outcome of the convention for being held in disobedience to the orders of the Federal High Court, Abuja.
Dissatisfied, the PDP approached the apex court praying it to accept the appeal against the lower court judgment, set the judgment aside and hold that the issue was an internal matter of the PDP, which both the Court of Appeal and Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain.