I have been following the latest developments with the leadership struggle of ADC after INEC announced that it has disengaged the leaderships of the party as reflected in the INEC’s website. I must say that I am not really buying into the popular narrative that the internal conflicts and frequent Court Orders meant to frustrate the operation of the opposition parties are entirely secretly plotted and executed by the ruling party.
This appears to me as a lazy and convenient ground for opposition parties to often boycott addressing their own negligence to doing the needful. In as much as I believe there might be a little bit of politicking underneath, that doesn’t sideline the fact that there has been a clear path of error being followed by the opposition over the years, and this pattern of laziness needs not be encouraged particularly at this period where it looks like opposition politics is completely dead in Nigeria.
The issue with ADC is premised on the fact that Hon. Gombe Nafir Bala who was the vice-national chairman of the party asserted that after the exit of the party chairman, he ought to have assumed leadership in line with the party’s constitution before David Mark was given the position. Gombe proceeded to pursue his claim by instituting an action before the Federal High Court via Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025.
In retaliation to this suit and based on the Order given by the trial judge, directing that the respondents, including INEC, to be put on notice to show cause why the motion ex parte should not be granted, David Mark approached the Court of Appeal to fault the Order at the Federal High Court. This is where the Court of Appeal then made the preservatory Order that all parties must maintain the Status quo ante bellum.
I’m fully aware that it has become elementary law that court can not interfere with the internal affairs of a political party, particularly when it has to do with the leadership and membership structure. But we must bear in mind that the power of court is not totally toothless when it has to do with non-compliance with political party’s Constitution, this is because political party just like any other corporation, must operate within the guidelines, powers and duties set out in its constitution. Therefore, where we have a situation where a group of people feel they are too powerful to be governed by a party’s constitution and such is allowed by the Court then we are confronted with a situation where democracy is thrown overboard by anarchy.
The rationale behind this exception of non-interference is to safeguard internal democracy. The consistent failure of this internal democracy is one of the reasonsthe Courts’ dockets are fully congested with pre-election disputes every now and then.
On the issue of Status quo ante bellem, the Supreme Court clarified in the case of Akapo v. Hakeem-Habeeb (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt. 247) 658 that status quo ante bellum that is relevant to consideration of an application for an order of interlocutory injunction is the one that existed before the act or conduct complained of by the applicant in the application. Status quo ante bellum has to return the parties to the state of affairs before the beginning of hostilities. I think to my mind that when we are looking at the state of things before the dispute in question started we must also make recourse to when the course of action arose, and the course of action arose in this circumstance when it became apparent that David Mark was going to be made the National Chairman and that is the status quo that is relevant to the matter.
The reasoning of the Supreme Court in the above cited case is premised on the fact that issue of status quo ante bellum is closely tied to the existence of a legal right sought to be protected by an order of interlocutory injunction. We can’t brush aside the existence of a legal right that might likely be affected if David Mark had continued as the National Chairman in that circumstance. I just do not find enough substance in the popular argument that INEC misfired in interpreting the Oder of the Court of Appeal.
I’m however not advocating for INEC, I maintain that they are a very corrupt commission that keeps on enabling strange electoral practice that is founded on deceit and fraud. Nevertheless, we can’t keep on making excuses for the members of the opposition who have refused to put their house together. Blaming INEC alone and sidelining the consistent internal breakdown of proper organization and strategic solidarity of these political parties will only give impetus to a cycle of underperformance and mediocrity that will continue to sabotage our democracy.
Semiloore Akinsulure, is a Writer, and a Media Personality.
