A Court Judgement of Confusion

The decision of the Court of Appeal to temporarily suspend the David Mark-led leadership of African Democratic Congress has again exposed the controversial nature of the rulings, which undermines confidence in the judiciary’s impartiality, Davidson Iriekpen writes

It is often said that no constitutional democracy anywhere in the world can thrive without a strong, credible and independent judiciary. The courts are not only meant to interpret laws but also to serve as the last hope of the common man, especially when democratic institutions fail or are manipulated. However, in recent years, Nigeria’s judiciary, particularly on electoral matters, has underperformed, leaving the public disillusioned, and democracy on shaky ground.

This disillusionment has deepened since the contentious 2023 general election where every activity suggests a desperate push toward a de facto one-party state.  This has in the two years exacerbated disputes in political parties which have ended up in courts. That reality underscores a worrying lack of trust in the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the electoral system, and, regrettably, in the judiciary itself.

In the last two weeks, one issue that has dominated discourse is the decapitation of the David Mark-led leadership of the African Democratic Party (ADC) by the Court of Appeal and INEC.

Currently, democracy seems to be in trouble in Nigeria, particularly now that the major opposition party in the country, the ADC, has been thrown into crisis. The same fate befell the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Labour Party and New Nigeria People’s Party (NNPP). 

The ruling party, All Progressives Congress (APC), INEC, the judiciary and those who have vowed to hold the opposition political parties down for President Bola Tinubu in 2027 are seen as responsible for this new development. 

Throwing the opposition into crisis has followed a regular pattern: The opposition will conduct a national convention and produce leadership; a faction will suddenly emerge, claiming that the people that won the leadership did not follow due process; another faction will go to court to get a declaration or an injunction; then the court will now deliver a confusing declaration, mostly in Latin – maintain status quo ante bellum. Whatever that means, the court itself cannot explain. Then INEC will assume confusion and the cycle continues, exposing how weak institutional guardrails, unclarified judicial orders, and overly cautious regulation can erode the foundations of multi-party democracy.

The current crisis took the same regular pattern. By the middle of 2025, crises had completely enveloped the former ruling party, PDP. Leading members of the party decided that it was no longer a viable vehicle for their ambitions. In a country where independent candidacy is precluded, control of a party is the lifeblood of political ambition.

Those of them who desired to quit the PDP had two options. One was to register a new party. For this, they needed the approval of INEC but knew that the electoral umpire under the control of the ruling party was not going to register a new party capable of making the 2027 elections interesting. So, they settled for the second option – an existing party. For this project, they entered a deal with the then existing leadership of the ADC.

The background is simple: On May 17, 2025: A resignation letter was reportedly issued by the ADC Deputy National Chairman, Hon. Nafiu Bala Gombe; July 29, 2025: ADC NEC meeting, observed by INEC, dissolved Nwosu-led leadership with Gombe in attendance and installed a Mark-led caretaker structure; August 12, 2025: The alleged resignation was transmitted to INEC; September 2, 2025: Gombe who did not raise any objection, made a U-turn and filed suit at the Federal High Court, seeking recognition as acting National Chairman and restraining INEC from recognising the Mark-led leadership; September 4, 2025: Justice Emeka Nwite declined interim injunctions but directed respondents to show cause.

Interestingly, in all of these, Mark was not party to that court case and no one applied to join him. When the application came up for hearing around September 4, the judge declined Gombe’s importuning and, instead, asked him to put all the defendants on notice to enable the court make an informed determination of the issues after granting all involved a hearing.

On September 9, 2025, INEC formally recognised Mark and Rauf Aregbesola as the new leaders of the party. This is important because it gave them access to the INEC’s portal for the purpose of certifying candidates on the platform of the party in elections.

Thereafter, Mark lodged an appeal at the Court of Appeal in which he questioned the power of the court to issue the order inviting the parties to respond to Gombe’s case. My friends who think they know Nigerian law advise – and I verily believe them – that this had them all scratching their heads.

Now, because he was not party to the original case at the High Court, Mark could not appeal against the decision except with permission of the court. He did not seek nor did he receive one. Having not done so, the conditions for a competent appeal did not exist and the Court of Appeal had no business hearing the appeal.

On March 12, a three-man panel of the Court of Appeal headed by Justice Uchechukwu Onyemenam heard the case and issued their decision. In a 40-page judgment, Justice Onyemenam, “dismissed” the appeal with costs assessed at N2 million.

In his own decision, Okon Abang, the junior judge on the panel whose text ran into 15 pages, ruled that having not secured the permission required for him to appeal, Mark’s appeal was incompetent.

When the judgment was delivered, despite the array of lawyers on its payroll both on staff and as external solicitors, including its chairman, Prof. Joash Amupitan, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) and professor of law, it took three weeks for the commission to interpret the judgment and come out with its views.

Surprisingly on April 1, 2026, it dropped a bombshell by announcing the withdrawal of recognition for the Senator Mark-led NWC of ADC while refusing to recognise Gombe as acting National Chairman, pending the substantive suit at the Federal High Court.

Amupitan did not stop there, he also advised the Mark-led NWC not to proceed with its planned national convention he had approved.

Analysts have argued that whether the status quo ante bellum is pre-Mark leadership or post, it is not INEC’s business, as it is still the internal affairs of ADC. According to them, what should concern the commission is a direct order on it by the court or the final decision of the Supreme Court, recognising a faction or nullifying everything done by a faction. This is where many suspect INEC’s position in the matter instead of seeking the court’s clarification.

Interestingly, it is the same INEC that took many months to obey the Supreme Court judgment on Labour Party.

First, courts must recognise that in politically sensitive disputes, clarity is as important as neutrality. Preservative orders must define their baseline. Second, the electoral commission must balance caution with functional continuity. Where ambiguity exists, judicial clarification should take precedence over creating institutional vacuum.

While INEC’s role in the saga cannot be swept under the carpet, that of the Court of Appeal with its vague and incongruous ruling cannot be wished away.

If the courts continue to entertain on the basis of loopholes, it sends a dangerous message that judicial activism in favour of truth is dead, and only the powerful win.