Lawyers were split yesterday in their opinions on the implications of the Supreme Court judgment in the ADC leadership crisis. The said judgment has triggered intense legal debate, particularly regarding its implications for the David Mark-led National Executive Committee (NEC).
Compounding the controversy is a pending suit at the Federal High Court, where Nafiu Bala Gombe is asserting himself as the authentic national chairman of the party. The Apex Court had on Thursday affirmed the leadership of David Mark’s faction of the ADC. The court vacated the order that directed the party to maintain status quo ante bellum pending the determination of its leadership crisis.
The judgment was in favour of the David Mark-led faction. The court, in a unanimous decision by a five-member panel headed by Justice Mohammed Lawal Garba, held that the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal acted beyond its jurisdiction by unilaterally issuing such an order after it had already dismissed a case that was brought before it by one of the factions.
Justice Garba, in the judgment, explained that the trial court’s directive maintaining the status quo ante bellum was essentially a preservative order intended to prevent parties from taking steps capable of foisting a fait accompli on the court while proceedings were ongoing. The justice, however, held that such powers must be exercised only in relation to live proceedings.
According to him, once proceedings have been “fully, faithfully, conclusively and finally concluded,” there would be “nothing left for that court to preserve.” The apex court also addressed the competence of the appeal filed in the matter and the constitutional basis relied upon by the appellants.
Justice Garba held that Section 241(1)(f)(ii) of the 1999 Constitution, which provides for appeals as of right in certain interlocutory decisions relating to injunctions, did not apply in the circumstances of the case. He held that the trial judge neither granted nor refused an application for an injunction but merely issued procedural directives aimed at preserving the subject matter of the dispute pending hearing.
The court further held that because the grounds of appeal were not purely on points of law, leave of court was required before the appeal could be filed. The justice stressed that obtaining leave in such circumstances was a “condition precedent” to the validity and competence of the appeal.
He added that the competence of a notice of appeal goes to the jurisdiction of the court, and once defective, the entire appeal becomes incompetent. Despite those findings, the apex court proceeded to examine the propriety of the preservative orders made by the lower courts and eventually held that sustaining the status quo ante bellum after the relevant proceedings had ended was unnecessary and legally unsustainable.
The Supreme Court consequently set aside the order and directed pending processes before the lower court. Despite the Apex Court judgement, Saturday Telegraph recalls that there is a pending matter before the Federal High Court filed by Nafiu Bala Gombe claiming the headship of the party.
Lawyers, however, offered detailed and divergent perspectives on the legal and political consequences of these developments. An Abuja-based lawyer, Chidi Nwosu, in his own reaction, said that, “the Supreme Court judgment, in my considered opinion, has far-reaching implications for the legitimacy of the David Mark-led ADC Exco.
“Although the apex court may not have directly pronounced on the specific individuals currently occupying party offices, its interpretation of party supremacy, internal democracy, and due process indirectly affects the foundation upon which that Exco stands.
“If the emergence of that leadership did not strictly comply with the party constitution and extant electoral guidelines, then its legality is open to serious question. “Furthermore, the judgement reinforces the principle that political parties must adhere strictly to their constitutions.
“This means that any leadership structure not birthed through constitutionally compliant processes is vulnerable to judicial nullification. “Therefore, those aligning with the David Markled Exco must be prepared to demonstrate that all procedures leading to its formation were lawful and transparent.
“On the issue of the pending case at the Federal High Court involving Nafiu Bala Gombe, it is important to note that the doctrine of lis pendens applies. “The court is already seised of the matter, and until a final determination is made, any claim to authenticity remains sub judice.
“However, the Supreme Court judgment may serve as a persuasive authority for the FHC in determining whether due process was followed. “In addition, if Gombe can establish that his claim is rooted in the party’s constitution and that due process was violated in the emergence of the current Exco, then the court may be inclined to recognise his leadership claim.
“The burden of proof, however, rests squarely on him. “It is also critical to understand that Nigerian courts are generally reluctant to interfere in the internal affairs of political parties, except where there is clear evidence of a breach of the party’s constitution or electoral laws. “This threshold must be met convincingly.
“In conclusion, the Supreme Court judgment has not out-rightly removed the David Mark-led Exco, but it has certainly placed it under legal scrutiny. “The outcome of the FHC case will be pivotal in determining the future leadership of the ADC.”
Another lawyer, Segun Adabara, said: “The Supreme Court decision underscores the sanctity of party constitutions and the need for strict compliance with laid-down procedures. “For the David Mark-led ADC Exco, this means that their continued legitimacy hinges on whether their emergence aligns with the party’s constitutional framework.
“It is not enough to have political backing or widespread support; legality must be the cornerstone of leadership in any political party. “If there were procedural irregularities in the formation of the current Exco, those defects cannot be cured by mere passage of time or political expediency.
“Regarding the suit at the Federal High Court, Nafiu Bala Gombe’s claim introduces a competing narrative that must be carefully adjudicated. “The court will likely examine documentary evidence, including party records, minutes of meetings, and electoral process- es within the party.
“The Supreme Court judgment may not be binding on the specific facts of the FHC case, but its principles will undoubtedly guide the court’s reasoning, especially on issues of internal democracy and adherence to party rules. “It is also worth noting that conflicting judgements from different courts could create further confusion within the party.
“Therefore, it is imperative for all parties involved to pursue legal clarity with utmost urgency. “Ultimately, the resolution of this crisis will depend on judicial interpretation and the ability of each faction to substantiate its claims with credible evidence.” In his own reaction, another lawyer, Basit Edem, submitted that “the Supreme Court has once again reiterated that political parties are bound by their own rules.
This is a settled principle of law. “In the context of the ADC, any leadership that emerges outside the framework of its constitution is fundamentally defective. “The David Markled Exco must therefore demonstrate that its formation was not only politically expedient but also legally sound. “If there are gaps in compliance, those gaps may prove fatal if challenged successfully in court.
“As for the Federal High Court case involving Nafiu Bala Gombe, it presents a classic example of intra-party dispute. “The court will be cautious in intervening but will not hesitate to do so if there is clear evidence of a constitutional breach. “The Supreme Court judgment may serve as a moral and legal compass for the FHC.
“While it may not directly resolve the leader- ship dispute, it sets a precedent on how such matters should be approached. “It is also possible that the outcome of the FHC case could be appealed, potentially bringing the matter back to the appellate courts. “This underscores the protracted nature of political litigation in Nigeria.
“In summary, both the Supreme Court judgment and the pending FHC case are interconnected in their implications, and their combined effect will shape the future of the ADC leadership.”
