Supreme Court Restores David Mark-Led ADC, Nullifies PDP Convention

Supreme Court restored ADC leadership and voided PDP convention, triggering sharp reactions, and uncertainty across opposition politics.

Relief and hope came the way of millions of supporters of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), on Thursday, after the Supreme Court set aside an order that threatened the presence of the party in the 2027 general election.

The apex court, in a unanimous judgment, held that the order of “status quo ante bellum” issued on March 12, 2026, by the Court of Appeal, Abuja, “was unnecessary, unwarranted and improper”.

In another stroke, it was end of the road for a faction of the PeoplesDemocratic Party (PDP) led by Governor Seyi Makinde of Oyo State as the same apex court nullified the convention it organised last November in Ibadan.

The court in a split judgment of three-to-two voided the convention that produced the Tanimu Turaki-led faction on the grounds that it was conducted in blatant disobedience of a valid court order.

The David Mark-led leadership of the ADC and the Turaki-led faction of the PDP had approached the apex court to challenge the judgments of the Court of Appeal entered against them.

They predicated their separate cases on the grounds that the cases in which judgment was entered against them were purely internal matters of political parties, which courts ought not to entertain.

They therefore prayed the apex court to reverse the decisions of the lower courts for being unjusticiable.

But, in the separate judgments delivered in the matter by the supreme court, the appeal of the Mark-led ADC succeeded in part, that of the Turaki-led faction failed as the majority judgment of the apex court, held that the convention stood nullified because it was conducted despite a court order restraining it.

In the unanimous judgment delivered by Justice Mohammed Garba, the Supreme Court held that the appellate court was right when it dismissed the appeal of David Mark for lacking in merit and also ordered accelerated hearing at the trial court.

Garba, however, faulted the appellate court for going ahead to issue a preservative order, after striking out the appeal for being incompetent.

The Supreme Court further berated the the appellate court for raising the issue of preserving the res (subject matter of the case) on its own (somoto) and then issuing an order directing parties to maintain status quo ante bellum.

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), had last month removed the names of David Mark and other national executive officer of the ADC from its portal as leaders of the party.

The action of the electoral umpire by implication robbed the ADC the chances of participating or fielding candidates at next year’s general election.

Among the reliefs sought by Mark at the apex court included an order setting aside the appellate court order directing the maintenance of status quo ante bellum.

Justice Garba, who delivered the lead judgment held that the lower court was wrong to have raised the issue “somoto” (on its own, not requested by any party in the matter), and subsequently issued the status quo ante bellum order.

According to the judgment, it was wrong for the lower court to issue any preservative order in a case pending before the trial court.

“The directive made (status quo ante bellum) after striking out the appeal and issuing an accelerated hearing was unnecessary, unwarranted and improper”, Garba held, adding: “It is hereby set aside”.

Having resolved issue one and two against the appellant, Justice Garba, also made an order directing the case back to the trial court, for continuation of hearing.

According to the apex court, the trial court neither granted nor refused the order of interlocutory injunction restraining INEC from recognising the Mark leadership nor restrained the Mark-led leadership from parading themselves as leaders of the ADC, but held that the respondents should appear before the court to show cause why they should not be restrained.

But in the case of the PDP, the majority judgment which voided the Ibadan convention dwelled more on the disobedience of the appellants.

Justice Stephen Adah, who delivered the lead majority judgment disclosed that upon their perusal of the record of appeal, the apex court found the issue of disobedience which was not disputed by any party in the appeal.

According to the apex court, rather than appealing the judgment of the trial court, which restrained them from proceeding with the November 15 and 16 National Convention, the appellants “went forum shopping” to get a favourable order from a court of coordinate jurisdiction, and only appealed the judgment after the convention has been held.

While stressing that orders of court remained binding until set aside, Justice Adah held that, “When a party refuses to obey the orders of a court, he must not be heard by the court”, adding that this type of abuse of court was unpardonable.

The apex court held that once abuse was established, the court was bound to invoke its inherent powers, adding that the court would not lend its machinery to a litigant, who violated the valid orders of a court.

While holding that the appellant abused court process in conducting the Ibadan convention, Justice Adah held that the conduct of the November 15 and 16, 2015 convention in violation of an order of court was therefore “null and void.

“Having resolved the sole issue issue against the appellant, the appeal lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. The cross appeal is also lacking in merit and it is also dismissed,” she stressed.

However, in the minority judgment delivered by Justice Haruna Tsammaniand Abubakar Umar, the apex court held that the case before the trial court was strictly an internal matter of the PDP, which the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain.

While agreeing with the majority judgment that it was wrong of the appellant to have disobeyed the judgment of the trial court, Tsammani stated that the action was not enough ground to dismiss the appeal, which the trial court ought not to have entertained in the first instance.

Tsammani faulted his colleagues for raising the issue of disobedience on its own, when none of the parties raised it.

He recalled that the apex court in several decisions has warned against raising issues (somoto) not conversed by any party, adding that the appellant was not giving the opportunity to defend itself over the alleged disobedience.

He, accordingly, allowed the appeal, stressing that the Federal High Court lacked the necessary jurisdiction to entertain the suit in the first place.

“Since, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter, the suit is accordingly struck out,” Tsammani held.

Justice Umar also pointed out that the issue of convention and congresses including party leadership were internal matters of political parties, which no court has jurisdiction.