According to a report by Daily Post, on Friday, May 1, 2026, a senior advocate of Nigeria, Oba Maduabuchi, has stated that the recent ruling of the Supreme Court of Nigeria concerning the African Democratic Congress should not be a source of celebration for anyone.
Maduabuchi made this known while speaking during an interview on Arise Television’s ‘Morning Show’, where he emphasised that the apex court’s pronouncement did not conclusively resolve the underlying issues in dispute.
According to him, despite the judgement delivered, the matter remains far from settled.
His remarks followed the decision delivered on April 30 by the Supreme Court, which nullified an earlier directive issued by the Court of Appeal. That earlier directive had prevented the recognition of David Mark as the National Chairman of the ADC.
Daily Post reported that the Supreme Court, in a unanimous judgement delivered by Justice Mohammed Lawal Garba, ruled that the Court of Appeal acted outside its jurisdiction by issuing an order that was not requested by any of the parties involved in the case.
The apex court held that such a directive was improper since it went beyond the scope of the matters brought before it.
Offering his personal legal interpretation, Maduabuchi strongly criticised the entire process that led to the Supreme Court’s involvement.
He maintained that the case should not have progressed to that level in the first place, insisting that there was no valid decision from the Federal High Court that could warrant an appeal.
Maduabuchi said, “The ADC had no business at the Supreme Court. There was no appealable decision by the Federal High Court.
“The Court of Appeal overstepped its bounds by making an order no one sought. In reaching the proper decision that there was no valid appeal by the David Mark faction, the Court of Appeal went a step further and ordered that the status quo be maintained.”
He further explained that the appellate court, after correctly determining that there was no competent appeal before it from the faction loyal to David Mark, went beyond its authority by imposing an additional directive.
According to him, such an action amounted to judicial overreach.
Maduabuchi also addressed the role of the Independent National Electoral Commission in the matter, noting that the electoral body acted within the confines of the law when it removed David Mark based on the Court of Appeal’s ruling.
He clarified that the directive issued by the appellate court was to maintain the “status quo ante bellum”, meaning the state of affairs before the dispute arose, rather than simply preserving the existing situation at the time.
This distinction is critical in understanding why INEC’s actions were legally justified, even though the Court of Appeal’s broader intervention has now been set aside by the Supreme Court….See More
Leave a Reply