Two Nigerian lawyers have provided perspectives on the ongoing leadership crisis within the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
They attributed it to procedural legal issues and binding court rulings, dismissing claims of external interference.
The lawyers, Mr Inibehe Effiong and Mr Bodunde Opeyemi, gave the explanations via their verified X (formerly Twitter) handles, amid public debate over the role of the electoral commission.
Mr Effiong, a public interest and human rights lawyer, criticised the legal strategy adopted by the faction led by former Senate President, Sen. David Mark, describing it as procedurally questionable.
He explained that the Federal High Court did not issue any restraining order against the party leadership but merely directed that all parties be put on notice.
According to him, such a directive is a standard legal procedure requiring parties to present their arguments before the court.
“It became a motion on notice. They should have filed processes in opposition,” he said, describing the decision to file an interlocutory appeal at that stage as unusual.
Effiong further noted that pursuing appeals prematurely could complicate the case instead of facilitating its resolution.
Providing further insight, Mr Opeyemi traced the origin of the dispute to a leadership contest that followed a party meeting in July 2025 which produced a new executive.
He said the crisis escalated after a party official challenged the outcome in court, seeking to restrain both the new leadership and the electoral body from recognising it.
According to him, although the Federal High Court declined to grant an interim injunction, the matter progressed to the Court of Appeal.
He said that in March 2026, the appellate court directed all parties to maintain the status quo ante bellum pending the determination of the case.
Opeyemi explained that the directive implies that the situation must remain as it was before the suit was filed, making the order binding on all parties involved.
“It requires a strict preservation of the state of affairs before the dispute,” he said, stressing that no party should take steps capable of affecting the case.
The lawyers also linked the stance of the electoral commission to the subsisting court order, noting that it is legally bound to remain neutral.
Opeyemi said the commission could not recognise any faction or participate in disputed party activities without breaching the directive of the court.
Both lawyers maintained that the impasse within the party was largely driven by internal disagreements and legal processes rather than outside influence.
They expressed the view that the crisis would persist until the Federal High Court delivers judgment on the substantive matter.
