By By Elizabeth Ugbo
The Supreme Court of Nigeria on Thursday in Abuja set aside a status quo ante bellum order in the African Democratic Congress leadership crisis. The court, led by Justice Mohammed Lawal Garba, ruled on an appeal challenging earlier decisions. The judgment addressed who filed the appeal, what the dispute involved, when and where it occurred, and why the order lacked legal basis.
Court Rules Appeal Required Prior Leave
The court stressed that obtaining leave was a condition precedent for filing the appeal. Without it, the notice of appeal becomes invalid.
Justice Garba explained that the competence of an appeal affects the court’s jurisdiction. Therefore, any defect renders the entire process incompetent.
Status Quo Order Declared Unnecessary
Despite identifying procedural issues, the court reviewed the lower courts’ preservative orders. It ruled that maintaining the status quo ante bellum after proceedings had ended was unnecessary.
The justices held that such orders only apply to ongoing cases. Once proceedings conclude, no subject matter remains to preserve.
Constitutional Provision Does Not Apply
The court clarified that Section 241(1)(f)(ii) of the 1999 Constitution did not apply. According to the ruling, the trial judge neither granted nor refused an injunction.
Instead, the judge issued procedural directives to preserve the dispute’s subject. As a result, the appeal did not qualify as one filed as of right.
Grounds of Appeal Required Leave
The court further ruled that the appeal grounds were not purely legal. Therefore, the appellants needed prior leave before filing.
This omission weakened the appeal’s validity from the outset.
ADC Leadership Dispute and Outcome
The judgment arose from a leadership tussle within the ADC. The dispute involved rival factions contesting appointments and congresses.
The apex court nullified the Court of Appeal’s order. It also directed lower courts to proceed with pending matters according to the law.
Importantly, the decision restores the David Mark-led executive, previously delisted by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
Final Position of the Court
In a unanimous decision, the five-member panel ruled that the earlier order lacked legal foundation. The court emphasized that preservative powers must align with active proceedings.
