Supreme Court lifts status quo order in ADC, restores Mark-led leadership 

The Supreme Court of Nigeria on Thursday set aside a “status quo ante bellum” order issued in the long-running leadership crisis of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), ruling that such preservative directives cannot remain in force after substantive proceedings have been concluded.

Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Mohammed Garba held that while courts have inherent powers to issue interim preservative orders to protect the subject matter of litigation, those powers are limited to ongoing proceedings and cannot extend beyond the conclusion of a case.

He explained that the purpose of a status quo order is to prevent parties from taking steps that could render judicial intervention futile while a matter is still being heard.

However, the court stressed that once proceedings are “fully, conclusively and finally determined,” there is no longer any legal basis for maintaining such an order.

“In such a situation, there is nothing left for the court to preserve,” Justice Garba stated.

The apex court accordingly allowed the appeal in part and nullified the preservative order earlier sustaining the status quo in the ADC leadership dispute involving rival factions.

The case stems from a bitter internal struggle over control of the party, including disagreements over congresses and appointments conducted by competing groups within the ADC.

The court also examined the procedural validity of the appeal filed before it, particularly whether it complied with constitutional requirements governing interlocutory decisions.

Justice Garba held that Section 241(1)(f)(ii) of the 1999 Constitution, which allows appeals as of right in certain injunction-related matters, did not apply in this case.

He noted that the lower court did not grant or refuse an injunction but only issued procedural directives aimed at preserving the subject matter pending determination of the substantive dispute.

On that basis, the court ruled that the appellants ought to have first obtained leave before filing the appeal, as their grounds were not purely questions of law.

The court described leave as a “condition precedent” for competence, adding that failure to obtain it rendered the appeal defective and deprived the court of jurisdiction.

It further held that where a notice of appeal is incompetent, the entire appeal collapses.

Despite these findings on procedure, the Supreme Court went further to consider the substance of the preservative order and concluded that continuing to enforce a status quo after the conclusion of proceedings was both unnecessary and contrary to law.

It therefore set aside the order and directed that any pending matters arising from the dispute at the lower court be determined strictly in accordance with the law.

The judgment effectively narrows the scope of interim judicial intervention in internal party disputes once substantive hearings have ended, while leaving the underlying leadership tussle within the ADC to be resolved through ongoing legal processes.