Our attention have been drawn to a press statement issued by one Christopher O. Okechukwu on behalf of the Nafiu Bala Gombe group in response to the earlier release by Hon. Bolaji Abdullahi, the National Publicity Secretary of the ADC calling on INEC not to be cajoled by litigants to enforce a non existent judgement.
We categorically state that, the press statement issued by the Nafiu Bala Gombe Group is, with respect, a calculated misrepresentation of the subsisting judicial position and an impermissible attempt to push to procure through administrative means what is yet to be earned through judicial determination in court.
At the outset, it must be stated that there is no subsisting judgment, either of the Federal High Court or the Court of Appeal, declaring Nafiu Bala Gombe as the National Chairman of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), nor derecognising Sen. David Mark. The reliance placed on interlocutory proceedings is therefore legally untenable.
First, the refusal of the Federal High Court to grant an ex parte order was not a determination of rights. It is trite that such refusal merely preserves the res and ensures that the adverse party is heard. It confers no declaratory or executory advantage on the applicant. To suggest otherwise is to fundamentally misstate elementary principles of adjectival law.
Secondly, the decision of the Court of Appeal, properly understood, did not pronounce on the substantive dispute. The appellate court merely directed that the matter be returned to the court below for hearing on the merits, while maintaining the status quo ante bellum.
That directive cannot, by any stretch of legal reasoning, be transmuted into a judgment recognising the claims of the Nafiu Bala Gombe Group. Status quo ante bellum denotes preservation, not conferment; neutrality, not validation.
Thirdly, the issues surrounding the eligibility and legitimacy of Sen. David Mark remains live and unresolved before the Federal High Court. Any attempt, therefore, to invite the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to act on a matter that is squarely sub-judice constitutes a clear abuse of court process. It is settled law that parties must not, while litigation is pending, engage in parallel actions designed to overreach the court or foist a fait accompli on the judicial process.
Fourth, INEC, as a statutory regulator, is bound to act only on the basis of clear, positive and enforceable court orders, not on contested interpretations of interlocutory rulings. In the absence of a final determination on the merits, any demand for recognition is premature, legally unsustainable, and incapable of grounding administrative action.
Finally, the conduct of the Nafiu Bala Gombe Group amounts to an attempt to weaponise self contrived ambiguity, distort the import of judicial pronouncements, and secure through public pressure what the courts have not granted. Such actions undermine the integrity of the judicial process and ought to be discountenanced.
In sum, there is no legal basis upon which the Nafiu Bala Gombe Group can assert recognition or seek enforcement of non-existent rights. The only lawful course remains the expeditious determination of the substantive suit before the Federal High Court. Until then, all parties are bound—both in law and in propriety, to maintain the existing state of affairs without recourse to self-help or administrative adventurism.
Alex Ter Adum, PhD
DDG THE NARRATIVE FORCE
alexadum45@gmail.com
