Supreme verdicts, major headaches for PDP, ADC
The Supreme Court nullified the PDP convention over disobedience of court orders, reaffirming judicial authority over political impunity. It removed restrictive appellate orders on the ADC leadership crisis. Still, the
The Supreme Court nullified the PDP convention over disobedience of court orders, reaffirming judicial authority over political impunity. It removed restrictive appellate orders on the ADC leadership crisis. Still, the substantive leadership disputes remain unresolved. Deputy News Editor JOSEPH JIBUEZE analyses the legal implications.
The Supreme Court’s decisions on the leadership crises rocking the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the African Democratic Congress (ADC) have reinforced the growing role of litigation in Nigeria’s political process.
In a pair of split three-to-two judgments, the apex court nullified the PDP’s November 15-16 national convention held in Ibadan.
In a separate unanimous judgment, it granted partial relief to the Senator David Mark-led leadership of the ADC by setting aside a preservative order issued by the Court of Appeal.
Although the two decisions arose from different factual and procedural backgrounds, both judgments carry significant implications for party administration, internal democracy, and judicial authority.
The PDP and ADC decisions have prompted competing interpretations.
The PDP judgment, implications
The Supreme Court’s decision in the PDP cases arose from appeals challenging judgments of the Federal High Court and Court of Appeal restraining the party from conducting its convention unless certain conditions were fulfilled.
One suit was brought by former Jigawa State Governor Sule Lamido, who sought access to materials required to contest for the party’s chairmanship position.
Another involved an order restraining the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising the convention if the PDP failed to comply with subsisting court directives.
The PDP nevertheless proceeded with the convention that produced the Kabiru Turaki-led National Working Committee (NWC).
In dismissing the appeals and affirming the nullification of the convention, the Supreme Court majority placed substantial emphasis on obedience to court orders and the abuse of judicial process.
Justice Stephen Adah criticised the PDP’s decision to approach another court of coordinate jurisdiction instead of complying with existing orders or pursuing appeals through established legal channels.
According to the majority, once a litigant becomes aware of a court order, whether valid, irregular or controversial, the obligation is either to obey it or challenge it through the appellate process.
The court treated the PDP’s conduct as a deliberate circumvention of judicial authority.
The judgment reinforced a principle repeatedly emphasised in Nigerian jurisprudence, which is that court orders remain binding until set aside.
The ruling also signals growing judicial intolerance toward forum shopping, where litigants seek favourable orders from different courts to undermine existing decisions.
By condemning both litigants and judges who facilitate conflicting orders, the Supreme Court appeared concerned about preserving institutional credibility within the judicial system itself.
Yet, the split nature of the judgment highlights unresolved constitutional questions.
The dissenting Justices, Haruna Tsammani and Abubakar Umar, took a sharply different view, arguing that the dispute concerned the internal affairs of a political party and therefore fell outside judicial competence.
Their reasoning relied on a long line of authorities in which courts have consistently held that congresses, conventions, leadership contests and party meetings are generally non-justiciable unless they qualify as pre-election matters expressly recognised by statute.
Justice Tsammani further objected to the majority’s reliance on disobedience to court orders because, according to him, the issue was raised suo motu by the court without inviting parties to address it.
This aspect of the dissent touches on another important legal principle - that courts are generally expected to decide disputes based on issues raised by parties rather than introducing new grounds independently without hearing submissions.
The split judgment, therefore, reflects a jurisprudential divide within the Supreme Court itself.
On one side is the view that judicial authority and the integrity of court orders must be protected even in intra-party disputes.
On the other is the concern that courts risk overextending their powers into political territory traditionally regarded as internal party affairs.
Factional BoT steps in
Adolphus Wabara, former Senate President and factional PDP Board of Trustees (BoT) Chairman, claimed leadership for the BoT after the Supreme Court verdict.
He said his intervention was to prevent a leadership vacuum at the national level, citing empowering provisions in the PDP Constitution.
He argued the verdict upheld prior suspensions of key officials like National Secretary Samuel Anyanwu, invalidating actions by both the Abdulrahman Mohammed-led and Kabiru Turaki-led (Makinde-backed) committees, thus placing leadership onus on the BoT.
The Wabara-led BoT, backed by Oyo Governor Seyi Makinde, yesterday appointed an interim national working committee.
It said: “Following the Supreme Court judgment, and in a decisive move to strengthen party administration and ensure constitutional adherence, a two-thirds majority of the 103rd National Executive Committee (NEC) of the PDPhas officially appointed and inaugurated an Interim INWC”, chaired by Turaki.
PDP’s Wike-aligned faction dismissed the BoT takeover claims, asserting that the party’s leadership under Abdulrahman Mohammed was intact.
The ADC case: no final resolution
The ADC judgment stopped short of resolving the substantive leadership crisis.
The case arose after Nafiu Bala Gombe challenged the emergence of the David Mark-led leadership and sought orders restraining INEC from recognising the faction.
When Justice Emeka Nwite directed parties to show cause why interim reliefs should not be granted, Mark appealed.
The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal, holding that there was no substantive ruling capable of being appealed and that Mark failed to obtain leave before filing the interlocutory appeal.
The appellate court nevertheless ordered parties to maintain the status quo ante bellum.
INEC subsequently withdrew recognition of both factions.
The Supreme Court agreed that Mark’s appeal was incompetent because leave had not been obtained.
This aspect of the judgment underscores the importance of procedural compliance in appellate litigation.
Justice Mohammed Garba held that failure to satisfy the condition precedent deprived the appellate court, and subsequently the Supreme Court, of jurisdiction.
The ruling reaffirmed settled law that appeals arising from interlocutory decisions generally require leave before filing.
However, the Supreme Court simultaneously faulted the Court of Appeal for issuing preservative orders after striking out the appeal.
According to the apex court, once the appellate court dismissed the interlocutory appeal, it became functus officio and lacked authority to issue substantive preservative directives concerning proceedings still pending before the trial court.
This aspect of the judgment has become the basis for competing political interpretations.
Supporters of the Mark-led faction argue that the removal of the status quo order restored their operational legitimacy and justified INEC’s reinstatement of Mark and Rauf Aregbesola on its portal.
Critics counter that the substantive leadership dispute remains unresolved because the Supreme Court did not pronounce on who legitimately controls the ADC.
The apex court neither affirmed nor invalidated the Mark-led leadership.
Rather, it corrected what it viewed as an appellate overreach while directing parties back to the Federal High Court for a substantive hearing.
Legal watchers say this distinction is central to understanding the judgment’s implications.
The removal of the status quo order merely eliminates a procedural restraint.
It does not determine the underlying legality of the leadership structure being contested.
Consequently, the legitimacy of the Mark-led faction still depends on the eventual outcome of the substantive suit.
The judgment, legal analysts noted, also reinforces a structural principle within appellate jurisprudence, which is that appellate courts should avoid exercising trial-court functions over matters still pending below.
By emphasising that preservative powers belong primarily to the trial court managing the substantive dispute, the Supreme Court clarified procedural boundaries between trial and appellate jurisdiction.
At the same time, the decision illustrates how procedural rulings can produce immediate political consequences.
Although the substantive dispute remains unresolved, removal of the preservative order gave the Mark-led faction operational breathing space and enabled renewed recognition by INEC.
This demonstrates how interim judicial orders can significantly shape political realities long before the final determination of substantive claims.
Broader issue of political litigation
The judgments also highlight the difficult position occupied by INEC in factional party disputes.
In the ADC case, the commission relied on the Court of Appeal’s status quo order to withdraw recognition of both factions.
Following the Supreme Court’s judgment, INEC updated its records to recognise the Mark-led leadership.
Some analysts, including Oba Maduabuchi (SAN), defended INEC’s actions as consistent with the judicial directives existing at the time.
However, the situation also reveals broader institutional risks.
Where leadership disputes remain unresolved close to elections, INEC may face uncertainty regarding which faction has authority to conduct congresses, nominate candidates or submit electoral documents.
Such uncertainty has historically produced severe electoral consequences in Nigeria.
A political analyst Jide Ojo referred to the Zamfara APC litigation following the 2019 elections illustrates this danger.
In that case, prolonged factional disputes ultimately led to the invalidation of electoral victories after the elections had already been conducted.
The ADC’s current litigation, therefore, raises concerns about whether unresolved leadership disputes could jeopardise future candidate nominations or electoral participation.
The ADC and PDP judgments reflect a broader trend within Nigerian politics: the increasing judicialisation of party conflicts.
Leadership disputes, congresses, conventions and candidate nominations frequently end up before courts, often producing overlapping and contradictory orders.
The Supreme Court’s criticisms of forum shopping and conflicting rulings suggest institutional concern about this trend.
Yet the proliferation of litigation also reflects deeper weaknesses within party structures themselves.
Internal dispute resolution mechanisms within parties often fail, pushing factions toward courts as alternative arenas for political competition.
The consequence is that judicial processes increasingly shape political outcomes.
This raises complex constitutional questions.
On one hand, courts are expected to uphold legality, constitutional rights and procedural fairness.
On the other hand, excessive judicial involvement risks drawing courts into partisan struggles and undermining the autonomy of political organisations.
The split PDP judgments illustrate this tension vividly.
Political consequences
The judgments are already influencing political alignments.
Former Labour Party presidential candidate Peter Obi cited the ADC’s growing legal troubles as part of his reason for leaving the party for the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC), warning against endless litigation, suspicion and internal division.
Rabiu Kwankwaso expressed similar concerns, linking the ADC’s situation to experiences within the NNPP.
Even where parties survive legally, prolonged disputes may discourage political actors from associating with unstable platforms.
This can affect coalition-building, fundraising, public perception and electoral competitiveness.
Even the NDC seems to be facing legal questions.
The All Democratic Alliance (ADA) is threatening legal action over the NDC’s registration by INEC.
Dr. Umar Ardo, a key ADA promoter, claims the NDC was not among the 171 associations that applied, nor the 14 shortlisted, yet it suddenly received a registration certificate.
While INEC claims the NDC was registered based on a court order, the ADA disputes this, alleging it was fraudulent.
ADA claims it fulfilled all requirements but was denied registration, while the NDC (which they allege was absent during the process) was granted one
Activist-lawyer Inibehe Effiong believes tough action should be taken to deter frivolous cases.
He said: “At some point, the courts will have to make it clear that it is not an arena for dubious and silly political theatrics.
“Some of these political litigations are just senseless. Lawyers who are filing senseless cases in our courts should be sanctioned.
“If INEC receives applications from different groups seeking to be registered as political parties, and decides to register some and ignore others for reasons best known to it, it is left for the aggrieved groups that have been denied registration to seek redress in court against INEC.
“The court, based on the evidence and the facts before it, can compel INEC to register more political parties.
“Suing the political parties that INEC have registered, and asking the court to compel INEC to deregister them, because you felt marginalised, cannot be a sensible legal strategy. Every group has a distinct right to seek registration.
“You can’t argue that because group ‘A’ was denied registration as a political party, therefore INEC had no constitutional right to register group ‘B’.
“As lawyers, we should stop ridiculing our noble profession. We owe a duty to the Court and the cause of justice, not only to partisan clients.”
There have also been allegations that NDC’s National Legal Adviser, Reuben Egwuaba, is simultaneously serving as the National Legal Adviser for the Allied Peoples Movement (APM).
NDC clarified that he resigned, but critics said his purported resignation date pre-dated the legal stamp and seal affixed to his letter.
Commenting on the controversy, a lawyer, Opeyemi Adeyemi, said: “I was in the Court of Appeal (special panel) last month and witnessed an appeal being taken before mine was called.
“An objection was raised therein by Appellant’s counsel, alleging that the Respondent’s brief was ‘incompetent’ because no counsel’s NBA seal was affixed.
“There and then, Awotoye J.C.A. asked Respondent’s counsel if he had a seal with him and if yes, he should come and affix the seal to the brief.
“Now I don’t know since when that brief in question was filed, nor do I know the year of the seal affixed.
“But it is a possibility that the brief has long since been filed before the Appeal was taken, and the lawyer affixed his current seal in court that day, which he couldn’t have had when the brief was filed then.
“Yet, this doesn’t make the brief incompetent, nor does it mean the lawyer has committed fraud or professional misconduct.
“While it is right to call out irregularities, not everything is a smoking gun.”
Lawyers and analysts react
Maduabuchi interpreted the PDP judgment as substantially settling the leadership question within the party, arguing that the convention-produced structure had effectively been wiped out while the pre-existing structure remained intact.
On the ADC judgment, however, he maintained that “nothing has been decided” regarding substantive leadership, describing the ruling as merely correcting an appellate overreach.
Counsel to Nafiu Bala Gombe similarly argued that six of Mark’s seven grounds of appeal failed and stressed that the substantive issue of justiciability remains pending before the Federal High Court.
According to him, the Supreme Court merely held that only a trial court could issue the disputed status quo order.
Legal analyst Abu Sidiq described the ADC judgment as forcing both factions to confront the core issue of legitimacy rather than relying on interim procedural manoeuvres.
He warned that while the Mark-Aregbesola faction currently enjoys operational freedom, failure to establish procedural legitimacy at trial could still produce future setbacks.
A lawyer, Usman Abidemi, criticised the Supreme Court’s decision to determine the status quo issue after holding the appeal incompetent.
Relying on previous Supreme Court authorities, he argued that once an appeal is incompetent, the court lacks jurisdiction to proceed further on substantive issues.
According to him, the ruling raises questions about doctrinal consistency in appellate jurisprudence.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court verdicts on PDP and ADC may have reset the legal battlefield, leaving substantive leadership legitimacy questions for future determination.
