By Kenneth Okonkwo

On the 30th day of April, 2026, the Supreme Court delivered judgements on the appeals brought by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the African Democratic Congress (ADC). The PDP led by Kabiru Tanimu Turaki, in its appeal to the Supreme Court, urged the court to recognise the Ibadan Convention that produced the Turaki-Led leadership of the Party. 

They hinged their appeal on the principle that courts do not have the jurisdiction to entertain any matter that borders on the internal affairs of a political party. Unfortunately, the Ibadan Convention was conducted despite a judgement of a court of competent jurisdiction ordering that it should not be held.

The ADC, on the other hand, appealed the judgement of the Court of Appeal which declined jurisdiction to entertain the matter of ADC and additionally made preservatory orders to the parties to maintain status quo ante bellum pending the determination of the substantive suit at the Federal High Court presided over by Justice Emeka Nwite. 

Curiously, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) interpreted the COA preservatory orders to mean that David Mark and Rauf Aregbesola were no longer the National Chairman and National Secretary respectively of the ADC, pending the determination of the matter before the Federal High Court (FHC).

The Supreme Court, in a split decision, 3-2, dismissed the appeal of the PDP and subsequently annulled the Ibadan Convention that produced the Turaki-Led National Working Committee (NWC) of the party. This decision terminates irreparably the NWC of the Turaki faction. The judgement was hinged on disobedience of the court order stopping the Convention. 

The three justices of the Supreme Court who dismissed the appeal were pissed at the audacity of the Turaki-Led faction to proceed with the Convention in contempt of an extant Court order. It is pertinent to note that the Respondents did not even raise the issue of disobedience to the court order in their defence. The SC, suo motu, raised it on its own and decided against the PDP Ibadan Convention.

The basis of the dissenting judgement was that the matter of the Ibadan Convention was an internal affair of PDP and the courts do not have jurisdiction to entertain it. They also condemned in its entirety the disobedience of a competent order of a court in the conduct of the Ibadan Convention, but held that it is not the duty of the court to conduct the case for any party before it. 

Since the Respondents didn’t bring up the issue of the disobedience of court order on their own, it will be a miscarriage of justice for the Supreme Court to grant a party a relief the party didn’t ask for. The minority two Justices of the Supreme Court also alluded to the fact that even if the court has the power to bring the issue suo motu, the court did not avail the parties the opportunity to address the SC on the matter, thereby denying the parties fair hearing. 

As laudable as this logic may sound, the majority three believed that the issue of disobedience of court order borders on jurisdiction, which the court can on its own raise by itself. The lead judgement observed that in the argument on this issue in the COA, the Appellants did not object to the argument of the Respondents that the Ibadan Convention was conducted in defiance of court order and as such that amounted to an admission which did not require the SC to invite the parties to address it on this matter.

The lesson here is obvious. The courts are very jealous of preserving the efficacy of their orders. They are aware that any judgement, which will tend to give the impression that judgements and orders of courts may be disregarded will not augur well for rule of law and the preservation of orderliness in the society. 

In this column, we alluded to this oversight by the PDP in proceeding to conduct its convention in disobedience of the order of court. We even opined that the PDP should have converted the Ibadan Convention to a non-elective convention in which it needed not to invite INEC to monitor it and in which it would have successfully suspended its erring members pending the conduct of another elective convention in future, when all the conditions the court stated in its judgement would have been fulfilled. 

The court confirmed the efficacy of this counsel when it upheld the suspension of those erring members of the Party as initiated in the Ibadan Convention while annulling the leadership of the party that emerged from the convention.

The position of the law is very clear that the order or judgement of a court must be obeyed no matter how perverse until vacated by the court or overturned on appeal. The SC believed the PDP did not respect this age long legal principle of law and the Turaki-Led faction paid a huge price for this negligence.

On the other hand, the ADC brought before the SC two issues for determination. The first borders on whether the COA was right to demand for leave before it could entertain the appeal of the ADC before it. The second borders on whether the COA was right in making preservatory orders demanding the parties to maintain status quo ante bellum pending the determination of the matter.

The SC held that the COA was right in holding that leave from ADC was necessary to evoke the jurisdiction of the COA, since the issue was of mixed facts and law bordering on discretionary interlocutory exercise of powers by the trial court. Consequently, the SC decided against David Mark on this issue for appealing a matter in which the trial court had not reached any decision on. The matter was remitted back to trial court for determination.

On the issue of making preservatory orders by the COA over the matter, the SC flatly rejected the orders and dubbed them as unnecessary and unwarranted. It reached this verdict by holding that it is only the court of first instance that can make preservatory orders when the proceedings are properly before it. 

The Supreme Court also observed that having given a detailed judgement on the matter and declined jurisdiction, the COA lacks the powers to make any order that will affect the interest of any party. It consequently set aside the preservatory orders and firmly returned the David Mark-Led leadership back to ADC. This was a big relief to ADC members especially when one realises that the INEC timelines for election is at hand.

This judgement is sound because the appeal by David Mark was premature. Parties must learn to allow the cause of action to mature in matters before presenting them to court. The trial court ruling was actually in favour of David Mark because the court refused to grant any ex-parte order against David Mark without hearing from him. David Mark, strictly speaking, wasn’t even a party yet at the trial court because the matter decided on was an ex-parte matter, which involves only the Plaintiff. 

Since no order or judgement was made against David Mark, the SC queried the need for the appeal. And being an appeal that required leave before it can be entertained by the COA, and the leave having not been sought and obtained by Mark before appeal, the SC didn’t find any difficulty in rejecting the appeal and returning the parties to the trial court. 

Parties must learn how not to run faster than their shadows. ADC scored itself an own goal here. ADC was lucky that it scored more goals than its opponents to emerge the winner of the legal contest.

The hypocrisy of INEC in interpreting the preservatory orders of the COA to maintain status quo ante bellum to suddenly mean that ADC had no leadership at all is mind-boggling. This smacks of conspiracy to destroy ADC by the INEC Chairman, Joash Amupitan, obviously serving the interest of external forces. 

It is a constitutional obligation on the part of INEC to be neutral and non-partisan. The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) stated it unequivocally that INEC must be neutral and not be a participant in the political contest. Joash Amupitan portrayed himself as a participant in the 2027 general elections and working for the ruling party, which appointed him.

Joash Amupitan is a Professor of law and a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN). It is elementary law that when a court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a matter, the court lacks the power to make consequential orders that will affect the interest of any party. Even if the COA made an order for the preservation of the subject matter pending trial, the subject matter is the leadership of the ADC, which ought to be preserved pending trial. 

There was never a time ADC lacked leadership at its helm of affairs. How can status quo ante bellum mean that suddenly ADC had no leadership? The action by INEC to de-recognise David Mark and the NWC of ADC was cruel, wicked, vexatious, and utterly irresponsible channelled towards making Nigeria a one-party state to pave way for Tinubu to contest unchallenged in 2027.

The Supreme Court judgement of Thursday exposed the hypocrisy of Joash Amupitan, the INEC Chairman. It is not enough that Amupitan should or has restored the leadership of ADC on its portal. Amupitan, having displayed partisanship and questionable integrity in his handling of INEC matters in favour of the ruling APC and against the opposition parties, should resign forthwith and allow for the emergence of a neutral, qualified Nigerian to conduct the 2027 general elections. There will be no free, fair, and credible elections in 2027 with Amupitan as Chairman of INEC.

*Okonkwo is a lawyer, a leader in Nollywood and a public affairs analyst. He published this opinion first in The SUN.