The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered two major judgments that dramatically reshaped the internal leadership battles in the African Democratic Congress and the People’s Democratic Party.
The apex court invalidated the PDP’s controversial Ibadan convention while restoring the ADC leadership structure headed by former Senate President, David Mark.
Hours after the judgment, key leaders of the PDP, including Governors Seyi Makinde (Oyo) and Bala Mohammed (Bauchi), alongside members of the Board of Trustees and the National Executive Committee, held an emergency closed-door meeting in Abuja.
The meeting, which was held at the Bauchi House, Asokoro, Abuja, was ongoing as of the time of filing this report last night.
The high-level meeting had in attendance members of the BoT, the National Assembly Caucus, the National Executive Committee, the National Caucus, state chairmen and ex-officio members.
In the judgment delivered by Justice Mohammed Garba, the apex court restored the ADC leadership structure headed by David Mark and former Osun State governor, Rauf Aregbesola, as National Chairman and National Secretary, respectively.
The dispute arose after a suit was filed seeking interim and interlocutory injunctions restraining the INEC from recognising Mark and Aregbesola as officers of the party pending the determination of the substantive suit.
The plaintiff also sought orders restraining the duo from parading themselves as party officers, occupying the ADC national headquarters and carrying out functions connected to the disputed offices.
Proceedings reviewed by the apex court showed that when the ex parte application came up on September 4, 2025, the trial court declined to immediately grant the reliefs and instead ordered that the respondents be put on notice.
According to the proceedings cited by Justice Garba, the trial court held that “the interest of justice would be met by putting the other parties on notice” to show cause why the application should not be granted.
An appeal was later filed challenging the orders made by the lower court, including directives that parties should maintain the “status quo ante bellum” pending determination of the dispute.
However, the Supreme Court held that the trial court neither granted nor refused an application for an injunction, but merely issued procedural and preservative directions.
Garba ruled that section 241(1)(f)(ii) of the Constitution, which provides for appeals as of right in certain interlocutory matters involving injunctions, did not apply in the circumstances of the case.
The justice held that because the appeal did not arise from an actual order granting or refusing an injunction, leave of court was required before a valid appeal could be filed.
The competence of the notice of appeal goes to the jurisdiction of the court,” the justice held, adding that failure to obtain the necessary leave rendered the appeal incompetent.
The apex court also clarified the legal scope of “status quo ante bellum” orders, describing them as preservative measures aimed at preventing parties from foisting a fait accompli on the court during pending proceedings.
Garba held that courts possess inherent jurisdiction to make preservative orders but stressed that such powers can only be exercised while proceedings remain alive.
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 consequently allowed the appeal, set aside the status quo ante bellum order and directed that pending processes before the lower court be determined in accordance with the law.
The ADC National Working Committee, National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi and a Presidential aspirant, Mohammed Hayatu-Deen, welcomed the judgment. They used the moment to renew their call for the resignation of the Independent National Electoral Commission Chairman, Prof Joash Amupitan, citing concerns around electoral integrity and institutional neutrality.
The ADC described the decision as a validation of its leadership and a confirmation that INEC’s de-recognition of the Mark-led leadership was wrong.
The statement read in part, “Today’s decision is an unequivocal affirmation that our party, its structures, and its leadership under our National Chairman, Senator Mark, and our National Secretary, Ogbeni Aregbesola, are legitimate. It lays to rest all contrived disputes and manufactured uncertainties, and reinforces the principle that the rule of law, not political manipulation, must guide the affairs of our democracy.
“We commend the five-man panel of the Supreme Court, whose unanimous judgment has today done great credit to the judiciary in our country and our political system. However, while we welcome this judgment, we do not mistake it for the end of the struggle.’’
The ADC urged all its members, supporters, and democratic stakeholders nationwide to stay vigilant.
“In light of this ruling, the ADC reaffirms its long-standing position that Prof. Joash Amupitan, the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission, must resign. The circumstances surrounding this matter, now clarified by the Supreme Court, point to either a grave failure of judgment or a deliberate act of bad faith.
‘’Whichever it is, the outcome is the same: the integrity and neutrality required of the office have been compromised. Nigeria’s democracy cannot afford an electoral umpire whose actions raise legitimate questions about impartiality.
“INEC must now restore the recognition of the David Mark-led leadership on its website, and in all formal channels of communication.”
On his part, ADC presidential aspirant Hayatu-Deen, in a statement issued by his media office, said the judgment represents a significant affirmation of the rule of law and the primacy of due process in Nigeria’s democratic journey.
In the PDP case, the apex court nullified the party’s national convention held in Ibadan, Oyo State, on November 15 and 16, 2025, stating that the exercise was conducted in defiance of a subsisting court order.
A five-member panel of the apex court, in a split decision, dismissed the appeal filed by a faction of the party led by former Minister of Special Duties, Taminu Turaki (SAN), and affirmed the concurrent decisions of the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal, which nullified the Ibadan convention.
Delivering the lead judgment in appeal number SC/CV/164/2026, Justice Stephen Adah held that the appellants acted in flagrant disobedience of a subsisting order of the Federal High Court restraining them from proceeding with the convention pending compliance with earlier directives of the court.
“The disobedience of the court order is not disputed,” Adah declared, adding that what transpired amounted to “a threat to the administration of justice in Nigeria.”
The apex court consequently dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeals and ordered parties to bear their respective costs.
The dispute stemmed from the controversial convention organised by the Taminu Turaki-led faction despite pending court orders and unresolved disputes over congresses conducted in several states.
Aggrieved party members had approached the Federal High Court in Abuja, arguing that the organisers failed to comply with statutory requirements under the Electoral Act and the PDP constitution before proceeding with the convention.
The trial court subsequently restrained the party from conducting the exercise pending compliance with its directives.
Despite the order, however, the convention went ahead in Ibadan and produced a factional leadership structure, triggering fresh litigation and accusations of forum shopping within the party.
In its judgment, the Supreme Court strongly condemned what it described as deliberate attempts by political actors to undermine judicial authority by obtaining conflicting orders from courts of coordinate jurisdiction.
Instead of obeying the subsisting order of the Federal High Court or pursuing lawful appellate remedies, the jurist said the appellants allegedly approached another High Court in Ibadan to secure orders enabling them to proceed with the convention.
“The appellant did not go on appeal but went to another High Court where they secured orders overriding the existing order of the Federal High Court and carried on with the party convention,” the justice affirmed.
The apex court described the conduct as “an unparalleled abuse of court process” which struck “at the very roots of the administration of justice system.”
Adah warned that continued disregard for court orders by politicians posed grave dangers to constitutional democracy and the rule of law.
SOURCE: NEWMUSK
Sign in to add your reaction.
Tags
