ADC Leadership Dispute: Court of Appeal Orders Cited as INEC Faces Contempt Threat
ADC spokesman and legal team cite Court of Appeal orders in Appeal No. CA/ABJ/145/2026, demanding INEC recognise Nafiu Bala and warning of contempt proceedings.
ABUJA, April 1, 2026 — The leadership crisis rocking the African Democratic Congress (ADC) has escalated into a full-blown legal confrontation, as party officials and counsel to one of the factions accused the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) of defying subsisting orders of the Court of Appeal.
The Acting National Publicity Secretary of the party, Bashiru Abdul Mohammed, in a televised interview on Sunrise Daily on Channels Television, called on INEC to withdraw recognition from the faction linked to former Senate President, David Mark, and recognise Nafiu Bala as the party’s lawful National Chairman. Mohammed anchored his position on a Court of Appeal decision in Appeal No. CA/ABJ/145/2026: Senator David Mark v. Hon. Nafiu Bala Gombe & 4 Ors, which emanates from proceedings connected to Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025 pending before the Federal High Court, Abuja.
Court Orders and Legal Issues
Documents made available to journalists indicate that the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, in a ruling delivered by Justice Uchechukwu Onyemenam, JCA, granted accelerated hearing of the substantive suit at the lower court in view of the electoral timetable. The appellate court directed all parties to maintain the status quo ante bellum, a legal principle requiring parties to preserve the state of affairs as it existed before the dispute, pending the determination of the substantive case. It further restrained parties from taking any steps capable of foisting a fait accompli on the trial court or rendering its eventual judgment nugatory.
Senior Advocates of Nigeria—Robert Emukpoeruọ, SAN; Lukman Fagbemi, SAN; and Luka Musa Haruna, SAN—acting for Nafiu Bala, in a formal letter dated March 28, 2026, accused INEC of breaching these orders. They specifically faulted the Commission’s decision to invite the David Mark-led group to a political parties’ meeting on March 24, 2026, and its alleged monitoring of a National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting held by the faction on March 25, 2026. According to the legal team, such actions constitute a violation of Section 287(2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which mandates all authorities to enforce decisions of superior courts.
Contempt Threat and Legal Precedents
The lawyers warned that INEC’s conduct could amount to contempt of court, noting that committal proceedings may be initiated against the Commission’s leadership if compliance is not secured within seven days. They relied on judicial authorities including AKAPO v. HAKEEM-HABEEB & ORS (1992) LPELR-325(SC), where the Supreme Court, per Nnaemeka-Agu, JSC, defined status quo ante bellum as the state of affairs before the commencement of hostilities. Additional authorities cited included NERC & ORS v. TEBITE & ORS (2022) LPELR-58321(CA), OLAMOYEGUN & ORS v. EBUN & ORS (2018) LPELR-46108(CA), DANGOTE INDUSTRIES LTD v. OCEAN BEAN GOLF & LEISURE RESORTS LTD & ORS, and FIRST AFRICAN TRUST BANK LTD v. EZEGBU & ORS (1993) LPELR-1279(SC). The counsel argued that, based on the doctrine of status quo ante bellum, Nafiu Bala remains the valid National Chairman, being the surviving leader following the resignation of other executive members.
The ADC spokesman, Mohammed, echoed the legal position, insisting that INEC must delist and remove the rival leadership from its official records in compliance with the appellate court’s directive. He warned that continued recognition of the faction could undermine judicial authority and the rule of law, adding that failure to act may trigger protests and legal action, including contempt proceedings. The lawyers demanded that INEC invalidate the NEC meeting held by the David Mark-led faction, remove the faction’s leadership details from its official portal, refrain from recognising any correspondence from the group, and allow Nafiu Bala to administer the party pending final determination of the case.
Political and Legal Implications
The dispute highlights the intersection of party politics and judicial intervention, with the final resolution now hinging on the outcome of the substantive suit before the Federal High Court. As of press time, INEC had not issued an official response to the allegations or the legal demands.