Two Nigerian lawyers, Inibehe Effiong and Bodunde Opeyemi, have attributed the ongoing leadership crisis within the African Democratic Congress (ADC) to internal legal processes and binding court rulings, dismissing claims of external interference.
They stated this in an interview with newsmen on Thursday in Abuja.
Their explanations come amid heightened public debate over the role of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and speculation about political influence in the dispute.
Effiong, a public interest lawyer, criticised the legal strategy adopted by the faction led by David Mark, describing it as procedurally flawed.
He clarified that the Federal High Court did not issue any restraining order but merely 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 instead of filing an interlocutory appeal.
He described the decision to appeal at that stage as “unusual” and “untidy,” warning that further appeals could complicate rather than resolve the dispute.
Opeyemi, on his part, traced the origin of the crisis to a leadership contest following a party meeting in July 2025, which produced a new executive.
The situation escalated when a party official challenged the outcome at the Federal High Court, seeking to restrain both the new leadership and INEC from recognising it.
Although the court declined to grant an interim order, the matter progressed to the Court of Appeal, which in March 2026 directed all parties to maintain the status quo ante bellum, meaning the situation must remain as it was before the suit was filed.
Opeyemi emphasised that the directive is clear and binding, requiring all parties to preserve the pre-dispute state of affairs and refrain from actions that could influence the case’s outcome.
The lawyers noted that INEC’s decision not to recognise any faction of the party aligns with the court order.
Opeyemi explained that the commission is legally obligated to comply and cannot take sides while the matter is still before the court, warning that any contrary action could amount to a violation of a valid judicial directive.
Both legal experts concluded that the ADC crisis stems from internal disagreements and legal strategies rather than external interference, adding that the impasse is likely to persist until the Federal High Court delivers a final judgment on the substantive case.
Eze Chidiebere Paul
I'm dedicated to creating high-quality content that informs, inspires, and delights. If you have any questions or suggestions, don't hesitate to get in touch. Happy reading!
