Considering the organisational weakness of the PDP and LP due to internal leadership disputes that have bogged down these parties, segments of the larger society had hoped that the ADC may be one of the rallying points in challenging the APC Presidential candidate in the 2027 Presidential election, as far as the dominant ruling parties are concerned.
However, the ADC appears to have been brought within the same ring of dominant parties that may not be able to nominate candidates to contest the 2027 election.
This short article is intended to address the core legal issue that should be of concern as far as the fear of the APC focussing on weakening opposition parties is concerned.
In reality, the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) and Mr. Femi Falana, SAN, have, in separate statements, clarified the core legal issue as far as the latest legal hurdle before the ADC is concerned.
Some background facts, deducible from the Court of Appeal Judgment of 12th March 2026 may serve to clarify our understanding of the central concern.
Hon. Rafiu Bala Gombe instituted a Suit at the Federal High Court, Abuja Judicial Division on 2nd September 2025 challenging the validity of the emergence of Senator David mark and Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola as Interim National Chairman and National Secretary of the ADC, respectively, on 2nd July 2025.
Apart from the substantive law suit, Hon. Rafiu Bala Gombe also filed an Ex-parte Motion and a Motion on Notice seeking interim and interlocutory injunctive orders. The FHC heard the ex-parte Motion on 4/9/25. Rather than granting the reliefs sought, the trial Court (FHC) directed that the Defendants (African Democratic Congress (ADC), Senator David Mark, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, INEC and Chief Ralph Nwosu) be put on Notice to show cause why the interlocutory reliefs sought should not be granted.
Senator David Mark was aggrieved by the order of the Court directing that Defendants be put on Notice. He filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal, Abuja Judicial Division. The Court of Appeal dismissed the Appeal and granted the following three orders, as quoted, verbatim, below:
– “That Suit No. FCT/ABJ/1819/2025, be and is hereby granted accelerated hearing in view of the Electoral Time Table released by the 4th Respondent” (i.e. INEC).
– “That the parties are hereby directed to maintain the status quo ante bellum and shall refrain from taking any step or doing any act capable of foisting a fait accompli on the court or otherwise rendering nugatory the proceedings before the trial court.
– “Costs of N2,000.000 (Two Million Naira) is awarded in favour of the 1st Respondent” (i.e. Hon. Nafiu Bala Gombe).
In order to fully appreciate the appropriateness or otherwise of the litigation initiated at the FHC by Hon. Nafiu Bala Gombe and the orders of the FHC and Court of Appeal, it is necessary to take a recourse to the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026.
Sections 83(5) & (6) of the Electoral Act, 2026 provide ad follows:
“(5) Subject to the provision of subsection (3), no Court in Nigeria shall entertain jurisdiction over any suit or matter pertaining to the internal affairs of a political
party.
(6) Where such action is brought in negation of this provision –
(a) no interim or interlocutory injunction shall be entertained by the Court, but the Court shall suspend its ruling and deliver it at the stage of final judgment and shall give accelerated hearing to the matter.
(b) the Court shall, at the conclusion of the matter, impose costs of not less than ₦10,000,000.00 on the counsel who filed the action and not less than ₦10,000,000.00 on the Plaintiff/Applicant and in addition to payment to the Commission of any cost, including solicitors’ fees incurred by it where joined as a party”.
It is my humble opinion that in strict observance of the Electoral Act, the FHC should have outrightly declined jurisdiction to entertain the Suit. As quoted above, the Electoral Act, not only prohibits the filing of law suits relating to internal affairs of a party, it goes further to mandate the Court to punish the counsel that files such an action and the litigant that caused the action to be filed by the mandatory imposition of not less than ten million on the counsel and the litigant, separately. Indeed, such a litigant and his counsel are required to bear the costs incurred by INEC, including INEC’s solicitors’ professional fees.
The order of the FHC directing that Hon. Nafiu Bala Gombe should put the Defendants on Notice of the Interlocutory reliefs sought appears to be in violation of Electoral Act.
While the Court of Appeal may not be faulted in dismissing the Appeal on technical grounds, which are well reasoned, the orders directing accelerated hearing without deprecating the initiator of the law suit (Hon. Nafiu Bala Gombe) for violating the Electoral Act and awarding costs of two million in his favour, appear to me an award of medal to Hon. Nafiu Bala Gombe for violating the Electoral Act.
INEC INTERPRETATION’S OF ORDERS OF THE COURT OF APPEAL
Apart from reading the text of the Judgment of the Court of Appeal in Appeal NO. CA/ABJ/145/2026: Senator David Mark v. Hon. Nafiu Bala Gombe & 4 Ors) I also listened to the interview of the INEC Chairman with Dr. Reuben Abati on Arise News.
I am of the humble opinion that the INEC Chairman introduced subjective opinion into his interpretation of the clear orders of the Court of Appeal. Contrary to the position of the INEC Chairman, the Court of Appeal did not order INEC not to recognise any of the contestants to the leadership of ADC. The Court of Appeal, in its 2nd Order, simply ordered:
“That the parties are hereby directed to maintain the status quo ante bellum …”
The order to maintain status quo does not imply non-recognition of any of the leaders laying claim to the leadership of ADC, particularly, within the context of the 1st Order of the same Court which recognized that an Electoral Time Table has been released by INEC. Maintaining status quo ante bellum always relates to a particular date, which the court may specifically identify.
Within the context of the fact that the Court of Appeal factually noted that Senator David Mark and Rauf Aregbesola had been in office, on an interim basis since 2nd July 2025 and Hon. Nafiu Bala Gombe instituted his Suit on 2nd September 2025, it is my humble opinion that status quo ante bellum and the doctrine of balance of forces should be interpreted to be in favour of temporary recognition of the leadership of Senator David Mark and Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola who had earlier been recognized by INEC and listed on INEC website. The conduct of parties, including undue or unexplained delay in filing suits and/or seeking injunctive orders, are important considerations in determining whether or not a party is entitled to the orders sought.
If ADC is to participate in the electoral activities outlined within the framework of INEC timetable, the Electoral Act, in S. 83(3) & (4), prescribes that only the Chairman or Secretary of a party shall furnish INEC with required information relating to its candidates, etc.
In view of the foregoing facts and analysis, it appears that INEC’s interpretation of status quo ante bellum is suspect. Assuming, without conceding that status quo ante bellum is not clear to INEC, nothing stops INEC, being a respondent in the matter, from approaching the Court to seek clear construction as to the date to be applied to status quo ante bellum, rather than interpreting it as a directive that no leadership should be recognized. In this regard, INEC leaves observers to draw the inevitable conclusion that INEC’s concern is to prevent opposition parties from presenting candidates to challenge the candidature of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu in the 2027 Presidential electoral contest.
In the circumstances, organized labour should take decisions to form electoral alliances and contest elections on a minimum pro-working class programme built around Chapter two of the Constitution.
11th April 2026
