The recent decision of the Court of Appeal of Nigeria in the appeal arising from the leadership dispute within the African Democratic Congress (ADC) has generated significant commentary and, in some quarters, unnecessary anxiety among party members. A careful reading of the judgment, however, shows clearly that the appellate court did not determine the substantive dispute regarding the leadership of the party.
At the heart of the matter is a suit filed at the Federal High Court of Nigeria by Nafiu Bala Gombe challenging the emergence of David Mark as National Chairman and Rauf Aregbesola as National Secretary of the party.
Alongside the substantive suit, the plaintiff filed an ex parte application seeking interim orders directing the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to withdraw recognition from the current national leadership of the party pending the determination of the case.
When the matter came before Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court, the court declined to grant the requested ex parte orders. Instead, the judge directed that the defendants be placed on notice so that they could be heard before any interim order affecting their legal rights could be made.
This decision reflects one of the most fundamental principles of justice, the audi alteram partem rule, which requires that no person should be condemned without first being given an opportunity to be heard.
Rather than determining the application, the court simply exercised its discretion to ensure that both sides would be heard before any decision was taken.
Subsequently, Senator David Mark filed an appeal challenging aspects of that procedural ruling. However, the Court of Appeal of Nigeria held that the appeal was procedurally incompetent because it was filed against an interlocutory directive without first obtaining the required leave of court.
Under Nigerian appellate practice, not every decision of a trial court can be appealed automatically. Certain interlocutory decisions require the appellant to first obtain permission from the court before filing an appeal. Failure to do so renders the appeal incompetent.
The Court of Appeal therefore dismissed the appeal on this procedural ground.
It is crucial to emphasize what the appellate court did not do.
The court did not determine the leadership dispute within the ADC.
It did not invalidate the emergence of Senator David Mark as National Chairman.
It did not remove or suspend Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola as National Secretary.
It did not grant the plaintiff any of the reliefs sought in the application.
On the contrary, the Court of Appeal ordered that the status quo be maintained pending the determination of the substantive suit.
In legal terms, maintaining the status quo means that the existing state of affairs should remain unchanged. The implication is straightforward: the present leadership structure of the party remains intact and legally operative until the Federal High Court hears and determines the substantive issues raised in the suit.
The appellate court also directed that the substantive case be heard on an accelerated basis, a step commonly taken by courts in politically sensitive disputes in order to ensure that the underlying issues are resolved without unnecessary delay.
The legal position, therefore, is clear.
The decision of the Court of Appeal was purely procedural. It addressed only the competence of the appeal before it and did not delve into the substantive controversy regarding party leadership.
Until the Federal High Court of Nigeria determines the merits of the case after hearing all parties, the existing national leadership of the African Democratic Congress under HE. Sen. David Mark remains fully in place.
Members of the party should therefore approach reports about the judgment with caution and rely on the actual legal effect of the ruling rather than speculative interpretations.
In law and in fact, nothing in the judgment alters the present leadership of the ADC.
Alex Ter Adum, Ph.D
DDG THE NARRATIVE FORCE
alexadum45@gmail.com
