Two Nigerian lawyers, Mr Inibehe Effiong and Mr Bodunde Opeyemi, have attributed the ongoing leadership crisis in the African Democratic Congress to internal legal processes and binding court rulings, dismissing speculations of external interference.
The lawyers gave separate explanations amid public debate over the role of the electoral commission and allegations of political influence in the party’s affairs.
Effiong, a public interest and human rights lawyer, faulted the legal approach adopted by the faction led by a former Senate President, David Mark, describing it as procedurally questionable.
He clarified that the Federal High Court did not issue any restraining order against the party’s leadership but only directed that all parties be put on notice, a routine legal procedure requiring both sides to present their arguments.
According to him, the appropriate step would have been to contest the matter at the trial court rather than file an interlocutory appeal.
He said, “It became a motion on notice. They should have filed processes in opposition,” adding that opting for an appeal at that stage was “unusual” and “untidy.”
Effiong warned that further appeals could complicate the matter instead of resolving the dispute.
Court ruling shapes dispute
On his part, Opeyemi traced the crisis to a leadership tussle that followed a party meeting held in July 2025, which produced a new executive.
He explained that the situation escalated after a party official approached the Federal High Court, seeking to restrain both the new leadership and the electoral body from recognising the outcome of the meeting.
Although the court declined to grant an interim order, the case was later taken to the Court of Appeal.
In March 2026, the appellate court directed all parties to maintain the status quo ante bellum, meaning the situation must remain as it was before the suit was filed.
Opeyemi described the order as clear and binding.
“It requires a strict preservation of the state of affairs before the dispute,” he said, noting that no party is permitted to take actions capable of influencing the outcome of the case.
Why electoral body acted
The lawyers noted that the court directive explains the stance of the electoral commission, which has declined to recognise any faction within the party.
Opeyemi stated that the commission is legally bound to comply with the order and cannot take sides while the matter remains before the court.
He added that recognising any leadership under dispute could amount to a violation of a subsisting court order.
Internal legal process
Both lawyers maintained that the crisis stems from internal disagreements and legal strategies within the party rather than external interference.
They added that the impasse would likely persist until the Federal High Court delivers a final judgment on the substantive suit.
