Politics

Supreme Court Restores Mark’s ADC Leadership, Voids Status Quo Order

Published

2 weeks ago

April 30, 2026

The Supreme Court on Thursday set aside the “status quo ante bellum” order made in the leadership crisis rocking the African Democratic Congress, ruling that the preservative directive could not validly continue after proceedings had effectively been concluded.

In a lead judgment delivered by Justice Mohammed Garba, the apex court held that while courts possess inherent powers to issue preservative orders to protect the subject matter of litigation, such powers cannot be exercised where there is “nothing left” to preserve.

The judgment arose from the legal battle over the recognition of former Senate President, David Mark, and former Osun State governor, Rauf Aregbesola, as National Chairman and National Secretary of the ADC, respectively.

The first respondent had approached the trial court through an originating summons, accompanied by motions seeking interim and interlocutory injunctions restraining the Independent National Electoral Commission from recognising Mark and Aregbesola as officers of the party pending the determination of the substantive suit.

The plaintiff also sought orders restraining the duo from parading themselves as national officers of the party, occupying the party’s national headquarters, and carrying out functions connected to the disputed offices.

Proceedings reviewed by the Supreme Court showed that when the ex parte application came up before the trial court on September 4, 2025, the judge declined to immediately grant the interim reliefs and instead directed that the respondents be put on notice.

According to the proceedings cited by Justice Garba, the trial court held that “the interest of justice would be met by putting the other parties on notice” to show cause why the reliefs sought should not be granted.

The matter was subsequently adjourned for hearing after service on the respondents.

An appeal was later filed challenging the orders made by the lower court, including directives that parties should maintain the “status quo ante bellum” pending determination of the dispute.

However, the Supreme Court held that the trial court neither granted nor refused an application for injunction but merely issued procedural and preservative directions.

Justice Garba ruled that Section 241(1)(f)(ii) of the 1999 Constitution, which provides for appeals as of right in matters involving injunctions, did not apply in the circumstances of the case.

The justice held that because the appeal did not arise from an actual order granting or refusing an injunction, leave of court was required before a valid appeal could be filed.

He described the requirement for leave as a “condition precedent” to the competence of the notice of appeal.

“The competence of the notice of appeal goes to the jurisdiction of the court,” the justice held, adding that failure to obtain the necessary leave rendered the appeal incompetent.

The apex court also clarified the legal scope of “status quo ante bellum” orders, describing them as preservative measures aimed at preventing parties from taking steps capable of foisting a fait accompli on the court during pending proceedings.

Justice Garba said courts possess inherent jurisdiction to make preservative orders to protect the subject matter of litigation.

He, however, stressed that such powers are exercisable only in relation to ongoing proceedings.

According to him, once proceedings have been “fully, faithfully, conclusively and finally concluded,” there would be “nothing left for that court to preserve.”

The Supreme Court further held that sustaining the status quo ante bellum order after the relevant proceedings had ended effectively transformed the directive into an unwarranted injunction.

Justice Garba described “status quo ante bellum” as the state of affairs existing before the occurrence of the controversial event that gave rise to the dispute.

The apex court subsequently allowed the appeal and set aside the order.

It also directed that all pending processes before the lower court be determined in accordance with the law.

Politics

APC Members In Ikole LG Condemn Attacks On Members During Reps Primary

Published

3 hours ago

May 17, 2026

Editor

….Seek safer venues for remaining primaries

Members of the All Progressives Congress (APC) from Òkè-Àkò Ekiti, Irele-Ekiti and Ijowa-Ekiti in Ikole Local Government Area of Ekiti State have strongly condemned the violence, intimidation and attacks that characterised the House of Representatives Primary Election held in Ward 11, Ipao-Ekiti.

The APC members lamented that the exercise, which ought to have reflected the democratic ideals of the party, was unfortunately marred by violent attacks carried out by political thugs against party faithful perceived to be supporting a different aspirant from the one backed by the attackers.

Among those attacked were Hon. Samuel Adetiba and Mr. Ore Bamidele, the latter, who was beaten into a coma and is presently in critical condition at a private hospital in the locality where he is receiving medical attention.

Beyond the physical attacks on members, cmpaign banners belonging to the aspirant opposed by the attackers were also vandalised and destroyed during the incident.

The APC members expressed disappointment that the incident was orchestrated by one of the chairmanship candidates for the Among Local Community Development Authority (LCDA), in the presence of the APC leader in the Ekamefa area, Hon. Samuel Abejide, who did nothing to stop the attacks of the party faithful.

In addition to the physical assaults, properties belonging to APC members in Ipao-Ekiti were reportedly damaged, while elderly men and women from Òkè-Àkò Ekiti, Irele-Ekiti and Ijowa-Ekiti were allegedly molested, threatened and forcefully removed from voting queues simply for supporting aspirants of their choices.

Olaiya Ajibulu, who spoke on behalf of the affected party members expressed deep concern over what they described as a growing atmosphere of fear and political intolerance capable of undermining unity within the party and threatening the safety of members participating in future exercises.

Consequently, Ajibulu said that the affected APC members from the three communities appealed passionately to the leadership of the party in Ekiti State, as well as His Excellency, Governor Biodun Abayomi Oyebanji, to urgently intervene in the matter.

They also requested that subsequent APC primary elections involving the three communities be moved away from Ipao-Ekiti to a neutral and safer venue where the lives and rights of party members could be adequately protected.

“Alternatively, we appeal that Òkè-Àkò Ekiti, Irele-Ekiti and Ijowa-Ekiti should be allowed to conduct their remaining primary elections at a separate venue where members can freely exercise their democratic rights without intimidation, harassment, or fear of violence.” Ajibulu reiterated.

The affected members also sympathised with all victims of the attacks and prayed for the speedy recovery of those currently receiving medical attention, particularly Mr. Ore Bamidele.

They reaffirmed their commitment to the ideals of democracy, peaceful coexistence and party unity, while urging all stakeholders to ensure that future political exercises are conducted in an atmosphere of peace, fairness and mutual respect.

News

Logistics Challenges Mars APC Reps Primaries In Abia

Published

1 day ago

May 16, 2026

Editor

The House of Representatives primary elections of the All Progressive Congress, APC, in Abia State has been rocked by logistics challenges and reports of intense lobbying.

The exercise, scheduled to commence on Saturday morning, is yet to start in any part of the state as at 3:00 pm.

A visit by DAILY POST to several wards where the primary elections were supposed to hold in Umuahia showed that no party official was on duty.

At Amuzukwu Secondary School, Umuwaya Amuzukwu, Methodist Primary School at Crowther Street, Umuahia North Local Government Headquarters, no official of the APC or the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, staff was seen.

Two female police officers who were deployed to provide security in Umuwaya Amuzukwu were left in confusion as they could not meet any APC official at the centre.

Source disclosed that some of the aspirants in various constituencies in Abia State refused the offer to step down before the primares, insisting that they be allowed to test their popularity in the exercise.

Meanwhile, two leaders of the City Boys Movement in Abia State, Chinedu Orji and Lucky Igbokwe, who are aspiring for the Ikwuano/Umuahia Federal Constituency, have issued statements maintaining that they are firmly in the race.

Explaining the delay in the commencement of the APC primary election, Publicity Secretary of Abia State APC, Uche Aguoru, attributed the situation to logistics challenges.

Aguoru invited all House of Representatives aspirants and other party stakeholders to an “emergency mandatory meeting” to be held at APC new office by Saturday evening.

Politics

2027: Court Rebukes Plaintiff, Lawyer In Suit Against Jonathan, Awards N1m Fine

Published

2 days ago

May 15, 2026

Editor

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Friday rebuked Johnmary Jideobi, the plaintiff, and his lawyer, Ndubuisi Ukpai, over lack of diligence to pursue the suit filed to stop former President Goodluck Jonathan from contensting in the 2027 presidential election.

Justice Peter Lifu, who described the plaintiff and his lawyer’s attitudes, which had continued to stall proceedings in the case, as “unacceptable,” awarded a N1 million fine against the plaintiff in favour of the ex-president.

“I have carefully and painstakingly considered all the submissions and prayers of the learners counsel in this matter.

“As this court has earlier ruled and ordered, this case has a character of politics.

“I have taken judicial notice of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC)’s timetable.

“The duty of this court is to ensure that political cases are given accelerated hearing and disposed of expeditiously.

“In that wise, and as earlier stated, this court reiterates the provisions of the National Judicial Policy in case management.

“I hereby orders as follows:

“The plaintiff, who filed this suit in October 6, 2025, and has not deemed it fit to serve, is hereby granted grace of two hours from now, that is 10:30 am, to serve all the processes to the 2nd and 3rd defendants (INEC and AGF) unfailingly.

“The 2nd and 3rd defendants are hereby ordered to file and serve their responses, if any, before 11am on Monday, 18th of May, 2026.

“By consent of counsel, this suit is adjourned to May 18th, 2026, by 12noon for definite hearing of the originating summons and all pending applications,” Justice Lifu said.

The judge, who observed that Jideobi filed the suit since Oct. 6, 2025, expressed surprise that he had yet to serve INEC and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), the 2nd and 3rd defendants, six months after.

Besides, he observed that counsel for the ex-president (1st defendant), Chief Chris Uche, SAN, told the court on May 8 when the case came up that they got the information about the suit in the media and decided to file and serve their processes.

The judge equally observed that on May 11, neither Jideobi, who is also a lawyer, nor Ukpai was in court despite fixing the hearing time at 2pm at the instance of the plaintiff’s lawyer on May 5.

He further noted that though Uche asked for a N5 million cost, the request was not granted in the interest of fair hearing.

“No doubt, cause follows event.

“On May 11 , this court refused to grant the 1st defendant’s application for a cost of N5 million but rather, make cost in this cause.

“Today, it is crystal clear that the plaintiff did not serve the originating summons to the 2nd and 3rd defendants since October 6, 2025.

“This case is for hearing today and the hearing has been frustrated or aborted due to the tardiness of the plaintiff who is a lawyer by training and calling.

“Hearing cannot go on now as an event.

“Consequently, I hold that punishment should lie where the fault is.

“I hereby award the cost of N1 million against the plaintiff but in favour of the 1st defendant only. I so ruled,” Justice Lifu said.

Earlier when the case was called on Friday, neither Jideobi nor Ukpai was not in court again.

However, lawyer to the former president, Uche, and AGF’s counsel, J. D. Esho, were in court.

Justice Lifu then asked the registrar to confirm from the court record if the plaintiff and INEC were served with hearing notices which she did.

The former president’s lawyer, therefore, applied that the case be dismissed with substantial cost due to the plaintiff’s continued absence in court.

Uche said the plaintiff and his lawyer did not see the reason to either write to the court or the defendants on why they would not be in court.

The senior lawyer said Jideobi and Ukpai, in their manner, had portrayed absolute disdain and disrespect to the court.

He expressed surprise that the plaintiff, who initiated the suit, dragged a former Commnder-In-Chief of the Armed Forces of the country to court for nothing and abandoned the case.

Uche said despite getting the news about the case in the media, the former president filed all his processses, including a preliminary objection, and served same on the plaintiff.

“The plaintiff thinks he can hold the court and other parties to ransom, and stayback in the comfort of his house and drag all of us to court,” he said.

According to him, there must be a consequence for every action.

“They think the courts are toothless bulldog and the dignity of the court must be protected my lord,” he said.

Uche, therefore, urged the court to invoke its disciplinary power on the plaintiff and dismiss the case as being an abuse of court process.

AGF’s lawyer, Esho, who told the court that her office was served with the ex-president’s response to the suit on May 11, said they were yet to be served with the originating summons of the plaintiff.

The registrar also confirmed that though INEC was served with hearing notice of today’s sitting, the commission had not also been served with the plaintiff’s processes.

Midway into the case, Ukpai entered the court and apologised for his lateness.

“My lord, I am sorry. I am for the plaintiff. Our vehicle broke down on the way,” he begged.

After taking submissions of all the lawyers, the judge adjourned the matter until May 18 for definite hearing of all pending applications and the substantive suit at 12noon.