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 influence.
Speaking to journalists on Thursday in Abuja, the lawyers said the dispute stems from procedural and legal issues within the party, rather than interference from the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) or any political actors.
Effiong, a public interest lawyer, criticised the legal strategy of the faction led by Senator 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 procedure requiring both sides to present their arguments.
“The proper course would have been to contest the matter at the trial court instead of filing an interlocutory appeal,” Effiong said, describing the appeal as “unusual” and “untidy,” and warning that further appeals could complicate rather than resolve the dispute.
Opeyemi traced the crisis to a leadership contest following a party meeting in July 2025, which produced a new executive. The matter 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 case proceeded to the Court of Appeal, which in March 2026 directed all parties to maintain the status quo ante bellum—keeping the party as it was before the suit was filed.
Opeyemi emphasised that the directive is binding, requiring all parties to preserve the pre-dispute situation and refrain from actions that could influence the outcome. He noted that INEC’s decision not to recognise any faction aligns with the court order, explaining that the commission is legally obligated to remain neutral while the case is pending.
Both lawyers concluded that the ADC leadership crisis is rooted in internal disagreements and legal strategies rather than external interference, adding that the deadlock is likely to continue until the Federal High Court delivers a final judgment on the substantive case.