By KosofePost
A new legal dimension has emerged in the leadership dispute within the African Democratic Congress, following concerns over the propriety of a recent decision by the Court of Appeal to issue preservative orders after striking out an interlocutory appeal.
Legal practitioner, Liborous Oshoma, argued that the appellate court may have exceeded its jurisdiction by making additional directives after declaring the appeal incompetent.
Background of the Case
The dispute originated at the Federal High Court, where Nafiu Bala Gombe filed an originating summons seeking judicial interpretation of the party’s constitution, particularly regarding his claim to leadership in the absence of a formal resignation by the chairman.
He also filed an ex parte application for an interim injunction, which the court declined. Instead, the court directed that the respondents be put on notice to show cause.
Dissatisfied with the ruling, David Mark approached the Court of Appeal to challenge the lower court’s directive.
Appeal Struck Out, Yet Orders Issued
The Court of Appeal, however, struck out the interlocutory appeal on procedural grounds, citing failure by Mark’s legal team to obtain the required leave of court before filing the appeal.
Despite this, the appellate court went further to direct all parties to maintain the status quo ante bellum, warning against actions that could prejudice the outcome of the substantive suit still pending at the Federal High Court.
Legal Concerns
Reacting to the development, Oshoma questioned the necessity and legality of the preservative order. He argued that once the appeal was declared incompetent, the court ought to have refrained from issuing further directives.
According to him, since no such order existed at the trial court, the appellate court’s intervention could be viewed as excessive. He suggested that, given the urgency created by the Independent National Electoral Commission timetable, the court should instead have ordered an accelerated hearing of the substantive matter.
INEC’s Past Approach to Party Disputes
Oshoma also referenced the electoral body’s historical handling of intra-party disputes, noting that INEC has often taken a cautious stance.
He cited the 2016 leadership crisis within the People’s Democratic Party involving Ahmed Makarfi and Ali Modu Sheriff, during which the commission withheld recognition pending judicial clarification.
Similarly, he referenced the leadership tussle within the Labour Party involving Lamidi Apapa, Julius Abure, and Nenadi Usman.
However, he contrasted this with INEC’s handling of the All Progressives Congress leadership situation in 2022, where the commission continued to recognise the caretaker committee led by Mai Mala Buni despite ongoing litigation, largely due to the absence of a formally recognised rival faction.
Outlook
The development has sparked divergent legal interpretations on whether appellate courts can validly issue preservative orders after declining jurisdiction on procedural grounds.
Observers note that the eventual ruling of the Federal High Court on the substantive matter, alongside INEC’s position, will be critical in determining the direction of the ADC leadership dispute.