Two Nigerian legal practitioners, Inibehe Effiong and Bodunde Opeyemi, have attributed the lingering leadership crisis within the African Democratic Congress (ADC) to internal legal disputes and binding court directives, dismissing widespread claims of external interference.
Speaking with journalists in Abuja on Thursday, the lawyers addressed growing public scrutiny surrounding the role of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and speculation about political influence in the party’s internal conflict.
Effiong criticised the legal approach adopted by the faction allegedly aligned with 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 standard legal process requiring each side to present its arguments.
According to him, the proper course of action would have been to contest the matter at the trial court rather than filing an interlocutory appeal. He described the decision to appeal at that stage as “unusual” and “untidy,” warning that further appeals could unnecessarily prolong and complicate the dispute.
Opeyemi traced the origin of the crisis to a leadership tussle that followed a party meeting in July 2025, which resulted in the emergence of a new executive. The dispute 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 advanced to the Court of Appeal, which in March 2026 directed all parties to maintain the status quo ante bellum — effectively preserving the situation as it existed before the suit was filed.
Opeyemi emphasised that the directive is clear and legally binding, requiring all parties to refrain from actions that could alter the pre-dispute arrangement or influence the outcome of the case.
Both lawyers noted that INEC’s stance of not recognising any faction aligns with the court’s directive. Opeyemi explained that the commission is legally bound to remain neutral while the matter is sub judice, warning that any deviation could amount to contempt of court.
They concluded that the ADC crisis is fundamentally driven by internal disagreements and legal maneuvering, adding that a resolution is unlikely until the Federal High Court delivers a final judgment on the substantive matter.
Comments