DAVID mark, Aregbesola at dead end

 INEC and the ADC Leadership Dispute: Legal Obligations Under Status Quo Ante Bellum

The genesis of INEC’s position in the ADC leadership dispute traces back to the NEC meeting of 29th July 2025, which produced a new leadership led by David Mark following the purported resignation of the Ralph Nwosu-led executive.

However, Hon. Nafiu Bala Gombe, who denies resigning as Vice National Chairman, approached the Federal High Court Abuja claiming entitlement to the chairmanship. He sought to restrain both the David Mark-led executive and INEC from recognising the new leadership, filing a motion ex parte and a motion on notice for an interlocutory injunction ante bellum.

Rather than granting the ex parte application, His Lordship, Hon. Justice Emeka Nwite rightly ordered that parties be put on notice. However, instead of responding on the merits, the David Mark-led executive filed an appeal challenging that decision, an action that has significantly contributed to the present legal impasse.

In its judgment of 12th March 2026, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of David Mark led executive and made a clear preservatory order:

“Parties are hereby directed to maintain the status quo ante bellum and shall refrain from taking any step or doing any act capable of foisting a fait accompli on the court or otherwise rendering nugatory the proceedings before the trial court.”

This order admits of no ambiguity. Status quo ante bellum means a strict reversion to, and preservation of, the state of affairs as it existed before 2nd September 2025, when the suit was instituted. It is a binding command prohibiting any alteration of the res.

The Supreme Court has settled this position in A.G. Federation v. Abubakar (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1041) 1, holding that parties must not take steps capable of prejudicing pending proceedings or presenting the court with a fait accompli. See also, Kotoye v. CBN (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 98) 419 which affirms that such orders are meant to freeze the legal and factual situation pending final determination.

Against this legal backdrop, INEC’s position is not discretionary, it is compelled by law. Faced with conflicting demands from both factions, the Commission is bound by the subsisting order of the court, which imposes a superior legal obligation.

Accordingly, INEC has taken the only lawful course: it has refused to recognise any faction of the ADC, declined to monitor or participate in party activities, and moved to remove names uploaded after the institution of the suit. Any contrary step would amount to a direct violation of a binding judgment of the Court of Appeal and a grave affront to judicial authority.

The law remains trite: no party can, by unilateral action, overreach the court. Until the Federal High Court determines the substantive dispute, any purported leadership outside the pre-dispute structure is a nullity, void, ineffectual, and dead on arrival.

© Bodunde Opeyemi, Esq.