ADC lawyers appeared to panic after the Court of Appeal issued its disruptive status quo order, abandoning their earlier course of challenging the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court all the way to the Supreme Court. Overwhelmed by the consequences of the appellate ruling, they seemed to accept the argument that their appeal had been technically incompetent. As a result, they shifted focus solely to vacating the status quo order at the Supreme Court and celebrated its removal as though that alone was a complete victory.
What their initial professional instinct sought to avoid has now materialized, exposing the lack of foresight in suggestions that they should simply have complied with the original order to show cause instead of appealing it. Events have demonstrated that such compliance could have trapped them procedurally, stalled their operations, and significantly disorganized the party.
ADC had a constitutional right to appeal the order to show cause under Section 241(1)(b) of the Nigerian Constitution. Exercising that right was legally sound. The Court of Appeal, with due respect, was arguably mistaken in striking out that appeal as incompetent. Its suggestion that ADC should have first submitted to the Federal High Court process and raised jurisdiction there could not override the constitutional guarantee of appeal as of right. The order qualified as a “decision” under Section 318, making it appealable without leave.
ADC’s legal team, therefore, should have pursued that jurisdictional issue further instead of yielding to the Court of Appeal’s reasoning and limiting their Supreme Court challenge to the status quo order alone.
Where the complaint is that the trial court lacked jurisdiction from the outset, especially in a politically sensitive matter like the Nafiu Gombe dispute where urgency was critical, appealing directly was the stronger strategy. Under settled Nigerian law, when a court lacks jurisdiction, its orders are null and void. A party affected by such an order has two recognized remedies: appeal the order or apply to set it aside before the same court. Many commentators failed to address this crucial legal reality.
Had ADC maintained its broader jurisdictional challenge, the Supreme Court would have had before it not only the issue of vacating the Court of Appeal’s status quo order but also the fundamental question of whether the Federal High Court proceedings were null from inception. This would have preserved multiple avenues for relief and potentially prevented the procedural difficulties ADC now faces.
There would have been no doctrinal barrier to the Supreme Court considering whether the order to show cause itself was void and undeserving of compliance.
This suggests ADC may have unnecessarily shortchanged its own legal position. In high-stakes litigation, presenting all viable grounds for relief is often wiser than narrowing one’s case prematurely.
Despite the Federal High Court’s indefinite adjournment, ADC should not panic. With INEC’s recognition of its leadership, even if provisional, the party should continue functioning fully and confidently. Regardless of how long Bala’s challenge persists, it is likely to unravel over time as a legal nuisance rather than an existential threat.
ADC remains intact. Its leadership should move forward with confidence and without fear.
Published by Chuks Nwachuku
