It is no longer news that the African Democratic Congress (ADC) has been enmeshed in leadership disputes, many of which are pending in various courts in Nigeria.
The latest of these legal disputes is currently pending before the Supreme Court of Nigeria, where judgment has been reserved by the apex court.
Obviously, the heartbeats of the key players in the said matter, which is an interlocutory appeal, are very high, as no one knows where the Honourable Justices will swing the pendulum of justice.
It is important to note that the kernel of contention before the apex court borders on the jurisdiction of the court to entertain leadership disputes among political parties. Some schools of thought are of the opinion that courts are not allowed to delve into the internal affairs of political parties.
On the other hand, another school of thought believes that where political parties breach their own rules and constitution, the court can be called upon to interfere with the internal affairs of political parties.
The above disparity presents one of the issues that the Supreme Court has been called upon to resolve in this interlocutory appeal initiated by Senator David Mark against Bala Nafiu and others.
Another ancillary issue surrounding the appeal is the definition and analysis of the concept of status quo ante bellum regarding the leadership of ADC—that is, whose name should remain in the national leadership structure of ADC while the original suit before the Federal High Court, Abuja, filed by Nafiu Bala, is heard and determined, including the legality of such an order by the Court of Appeal at that stage of the interlocutory appeal.
In all these legal issues that have arisen, what does the law really say to determine the direction in which the opposition ADC will move?
In answer to the above, the general rule is that courts are not allowed to dabble in the internal affairs of political parties. These are positions taken by the apex court in numerous cases, including Julius Abure vs Nenadi Usman/Labour Party (2025), unreported.
However, in other instances, the same Supreme Court has created an exception to the above general rule by stating clearly that where political parties fail to abide by their own rules, constitution, and guidelines, the court can interfere in the internal affairs of political parties. See Nguroje vs El-Subi (2023) 1 Nigerian Political Law Reports, page 31.
More interestingly, the recent Electoral Act 2026 (as amended) has further toed the line of the general rule when, in its Section 83, it clearly states that courts should not entertain or assume jurisdiction over matters concerning the internal affairs of political parties.
This seems to be the clear state of the law. However, when same is juxtaposed with the provisions of Section 6(6) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the above Electoral Act provision may be struck down by the apex court for being a judicial usurpation.
This is where the trap allegedly set by the ruling party is being pigeonholed against ADC.
INEC guidelines for the conduct of the 2027 general election have also further worsened the situation, as there is no longer enough time for the opposition parties to organise themselves.
Currently, all eyes are on the Supreme Court to deliver its judgment on the ADC leadership crisis. The bitter truth is that it is still premature for the Supreme Court to determine who the authentic leaders of ADC are at this stage, as the appeal before it is an interlocutory appeal and not a final appeal.
The duty to determine the authentic national leadership of ADC still lies within the bosom of the Federal High Court, Abuja, in the suit filed by Nafiu Bala.
Though I am not preempting the decision of the Supreme Court, the matter may still be referred back to the Federal High Court for final determination. By that time, all the opposition parties and personalities in ADC, having put their political eggs in one basket, may no longer have the option of decamping or changing to another political platform if the Federal High Court or any appellate court rules against their interest.
In that case, they would be under political cage by the ruling party, thereby paving the way for a one-party presidential contest.
The truth, therefore, is that based on the litany of cases already surrounding the ADC leadership—which may be self-induced or manipulated by the ruling party—our leaders and political stakeholders should urgently begin devising Option B implementation, that is, the need to move to another new political platform before the expiration of the INEC deadline.
Let all our leaders know again that at this critical moment, the Nigerian judiciary handling political cases cannot be trusted any longer. The era of judicial precedent and/or stare decisis appears to have been overtaken by political pressure, political connections, and political influence.
The independence of the judiciary cannot be guaranteed at this crucial stage of our political history. The judiciary has the law in its hands and can go in any direction it chooses.
It is a better option to look for a new political platform that has no national leadership issues and no affiliation with the ruling party, through which the vision for a new Nigeria can be pursued.
The moment the Supreme Court rules that the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the ADC leadership issue, or refers the case back to the Federal High Court for full determination, that may become the moment of full political heartbreak for ADC.
The David Mark-led ADC leadership may even be given victory at the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal as a way of luring political heavyweights to remain in the party, only for the big hammer of nullification to be struck by the Supreme Court when the case returns on final appeal rather than interlocutory appeal.
Such a situation would mean that all candidates fielded by ADC—from presidential to State House of Assembly—could be set aside by the Supreme Court based on wrongful nominations by an invalid national leadership.
This kind of situation has occurred before in Zamfara State and Rivers State, where APC had no candidates at the time as declared by the Supreme Court.
The current INEC Chairman, Amupitan, allegedly leaked this game plan during his interview on Arise TV in March 2026.
The bitter truth again is that the same judicial script is what is currently being played by the ruling party.
In order to avoid being entangled in the same political quagmire and having seen the gimmicks being displayed by the powers that be, I advise that the best and safest angle of escape is for opposition heavyweights to move to a new political platform.
Once this is done, the ruling party may not have enough time to start writing a new script against the new movement, thereby creating a more relaxed and stable contest come 2027.
Though this is a tough decision to make, it remains the safest option.
The gathering of opposition leaders in Ibadan on April 25, 2026, gives credence to this advice so that ADC can escape the danger of remaining in one basket.
Hence, by the litany of cases already laid as ambush against ADC, it may be very difficult for the ADC leadership to overcome all these judicial landmines, which can be manipulated one way or the other.
This is my humble legal advice.
BONUM ELIGERE – LET US CONTINUE TO DO GOOD.
Ozo Barr. Alex Amujiogu
Editor-in-Chief
Nigerian Political Law Reports
Enugu, Nigeria
25/04/2026
