Two Nigerian lawyers, Inibehe Effiong and Bodunde Opeyemi, have offered detailed legal explanations of the ongoing leadership crisis within the African Democratic Congress (ADC), pointing to procedural decisions and binding court rulings as the root of the dispute.
Their interventions come amid growing public debate over the role of the electoral commission and speculation about possible political interference.
Mr Effiong, a public interest and human rights lawyer, criticised the legal approach taken by the faction led by former Senate President David Mark, describing it as procedurally questionable.
He said the Federal High Court did not issue any restraining order against the leadership, but instead directed that all parties be put on notice — a standard legal step requiring both sides to present their arguments.
According to him, the appropriate response would have been to contest the case at the trial court rather than file an interlocutory appeal.
“It became a motion on notice. They should have filed processes in opposition,” he said, adding that the decision to appeal at that stage was “unusual” and “untidy”.
He warned that pursuing further appeals could complicate the matter further instead of resolving it.
*Court ruling shapes situation*
Legal practitioner Mr Opeyemi traced the dispute to a leadership contest that followed a party meeting in July 2025, which produced a new executive.
The situation escalated when a party official challenged the process in court, asking the Federal High Court to stop both the new leadership and the electoral body from recognising the outcome.
While the court declined to grant an interim order, the case later reached the Court of Appeal.
In March 2026, the appellate court directed all parties to maintain the status quo ante bellum — meaning the situation must remain as it was before the case was filed.
Mr Opeyemi said this order is clear and binding.
“It requires a strict preservation of the state of affairs before the dispute,” he explained, adding that no party is allowed to take actions that could influence the outcome of the case.
Why the electoral body acted
The lawyers say this court order explains the position taken by the electoral commission, which has declined to recognise any faction of the party.
According to Mr Opeyemi, the commission is legally bound to comply with the directive and cannot take sides while the case is still before the court.
He said any attempt to recognise a leadership or engage with party activities under dispute could amount to a violation of a valid court order.
*Focus on internal legal process*
Both lawyers suggest that the situation is the result of internal disagreements and legal strategy within the party.
Their analysis indicates that the current impasse is being shaped by court processes rather than actions from outside the party.
The dispute is expected to remain unresolved until the Federal High Court delivers a final judgment on the substantive case.
