Supreme Court reinstates Mark’s ADC leadership, voids status quo order

THE Supreme Court of Nigeria on Thursday nullified a controversial ‘status quo ante bellum’ directive issued during the prolonged leadership tussle within the African Democratic Congress (ADC), ruling that such preservative orders cannot remain in force after the conclusion of proceedings.

Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Mohammed Garba held that while courts possess inherent authority to issue interim orders to safeguard the subject matter of a case, those directives automatically lapse once the matter has been fully and finally determined.

The apex court consequently upheld the appeal and struck down the order that had maintained the status quo in the dispute involving rival factions of the ADC, effectively restoring the leadership position aligned with David Mark.

The case stemmed from a protracted legal battle over the party’s leadership structure, including disagreements surrounding appointments and congresses conducted by competing factions.

READ ALSO: Supreme Court to rule on ADC leadership dispute, PDP Ibadan convention cases today

Justice Garba explained that the lower court’s directive was intended as a temporary measure to prevent any party from taking steps that could prejudice the court while the matter was still pending. However, he emphasised that such powers are strictly tied to ongoing proceedings.

According to him, once a case has been fully, faithfully, conclusively and finally concluded, there remains nothing for the court to preserve, rendering any continuing order legally untenable.

The court also examined the validity of the appeal and the constitutional provisions relied upon by the appellants. It ruled that Section 241(1)(f)(ii) of the 1999 Constitution, which covers appeals as of right in interlocutory injunction matters, did not apply in this instance.

Justice Garba noted that the trial court neither granted nor refused an injunction but merely issued procedural directives. He further held that since the appeal raised issues beyond pure questions of law, prior leave of court was required for it to be competent.

He stressed that obtaining such leave is a condition precedent, warning that any defect in a notice of appeal directly affects the court’s jurisdiction and renders the entire appeal invalid.

Despite identifying these procedural issues, the Supreme Court went on to assess the merit of the preservative orders and concluded that maintaining the status quo after proceedings had ended was unnecessary and unsustainable in law.

The court ultimately set aside the directive and ordered that all pending matters before the lower court be resolved in accordance with due legal process.