The Supreme Court of Nigeria on Thursday, April 30, 2026, set aside the Court of Appeal’s ruling that had ordered parties involved in the leadership dispute within the African Democratic Congress (ADC) to maintain the status quo. However, the apex court upheld the appellate court’s directive for the parties to return to the Federal High Court for a resolution of the matter.
In its unanimous judgment, the Supreme Court criticized the Court of Appeal’s decision to issue the “status quo ante bellum” order, which it deemed unnecessary and improper. The Court of Appeal had issued this preservative order after striking out the appeal filed by the appellant, and had also called for an accelerated hearing of the case.
Justice Mohammed Garba, who delivered the lead judgment, explained that the Court of Appeal was wrong to have raised the issue “sua sponte” (on its own) and to have subsequently issued the status quo ante bellum order. He emphasized that it was inappropriate for a lower court to issue any preservative orders while the matter was still pending before the trial court.
The case stems from a leadership tussle within the ADC that has now moved to the courts. The dispute, which began in mid-2025, has been exacerbated by the involvement of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). INEC, on April 1, withdrew recognition from both the Mark- and Bala-led factions of the party, citing the Court of Appeal’s order to maintain the status quo. This decision has left the ADC without an officially recognized leadership, creating concerns about the party’s ability to function effectively ahead of the 2027 general elections.
The leadership crisis began after the Federal High Court ruling on September 4, 2025, where Justice Emeka Nwite had refused to grant certain injunctive reliefs requested by one faction led by Bala. This ruling had been appealed by the Mark-led faction, which contends that the leadership transition was lawful, citing National Executive Committee (NEC) decisions from 2025 that ratified a caretaker leadership structure. They also argue that the waivers for the two-year membership rule were properly issued in accordance with the ADC constitution to support coalition-building efforts.
With INEC’s stance and the ongoing leadership dispute, the ADC’s participation in the 2027 elections remains uncertain until a final judicial determination is made.
