Supreme Court affirms David Mark as ADC chairman

Supreme Court has set aside a controversial “status quo ante bellum” order issued during the protracted leadership crisis within the African Democratic Congress (ADC), ruling that such a preservative directive cannot remain in force once a case has been fully concluded.

In a unanimous decision delivered on Thursday, a five-member panel of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, led by Justice Mohammed Lawal Garba, held that while courts have inherent powers to issue interim orders to preserve the subject matter of litigation, those powers are limited to the lifespan of active proceedings.

Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Garba explained that orders maintaining the “status quo ante bellum” are designed to prevent either party from taking actions that could undermine the court’s authority or render its eventual decision ineffective. However, he stressed that such measures lose legal footing once proceedings have been “fully, conclusively and finally concluded.”

“There would be nothing left for that court to preserve,” the justice said, underscoring that preservative orders cannot subsist beyond the life of the case.

The ruling followed a legal challenge arising from rival claims to the ADC’s leadership, including disputes over the legitimacy of appointments and congresses conducted by opposing factions within the party.

The apex court allowed the appeal and nullified the earlier directive that had maintained the status quo, describing its continuation after the conclusion of proceedings as legally unsustainable.

The court also examined the procedural validity of the appeal itself. Justice Garba ruled that the appellants had improperly relied on Section 241(1)(f)(ii) of the 1999 Constitution, which permits appeals as of right in certain interlocutory matters involving injunctions.

According to the court, the trial judge neither granted nor refused an injunction but merely issued procedural orders aimed at preserving the dispute pending determination. As a result, the appeal did not qualify for automatic filing and required prior leave of court.

The justice emphasised that obtaining such leave is a “condition precedent” to the competence of an appeal. Without it, he said, the notice of appeal becomes defective and deprives the court of jurisdiction.

Despite identifying procedural shortcomings, the Supreme Court proceeded to consider the substance of the case, ultimately concluding that the continuation of the status quo order after the end of proceedings had no legal basis.

The court subsequently directed that any pending matters before the lower court be resolved strictly in accordance with the law.

The decision is expected to have significant implications for the internal power struggle within the ADC, as well as broader questions about judicial intervention in party leadership disputes.

Source: Adapted from court proceedings and legal filings reported by Nigerian media, April 30, 2026.