LEGAL OPINION
PROPER INTERPRETATION OF THE ORDER OF THE COURT OF APPEAL DIRECTING PARTIES TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO ANTE BELLUM IN APPEAL NO: CA/ABJ/145/2026 – SENATOR DAVID MARK v. HON. NAFIU BALA GOMBE & ORS
Date: March 16, 2026
- INTRODUCTION
My attention has been drawn to an invitation to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) by counsel acting for and on behalf of Hon. Nafiu Bala Gombe to recognise his client as the Acting National Chairman of ADC. As a bonafide party member of the ADC and a lawyer, I have elected to provide my legal opinion on the proper interpretation and legal implications of the preservatory order made by the Court of Appeal in Appeal No. CA/ABJ/145/2026, wherein the Court directed the parties to maintain the status quo ante bellum pending the determination of the substantive suit before the Federal High Court.
The opinion refutes the proposition contained in the letter written to the INEC by counsel to Hon. Nafiu Bala Gombe, urging the Commission to interpret the said order as requiring the withdrawal of recognition from the present National Chairman and National Secretary of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), namely H.E. Senator David Mark and H.E. Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola and the extant NWC of the ADC.
I have carefully considered the facts available in public domain and those made available by the National Secretariat of our great party, the relevant constitutional and statutory provisions, and the applicable judicial authorities to arrive at the conclusion that the request is subjudice and non sequitur.
- ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
The issues arising for determination are as follows:
2.1 What is the proper legal meaning and scope of the order directing the parties to maintain the status quo ante bellum?
2.2 Whether the order of the Court of Appeal requires or authorizes INEC to withdraw recognition from the present leadership of the African Democratic Congress?
2.3 What is the legal effect of the resignation of Hon. Nafiu Bala Gombe from the National Working Committee of the party?
2.4 Whether Hon. Nafiu Bala possesses the requisite locus standi to challenge the leadership of the party after resigning from its governing body?
- RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND
3.1 Based on the materials provided, the relevant facts may be summarized as follows:
3.2 Hon. Nafiu Bala Gombe resigned from the National Working Committee (NWC) of the African Democratic Congress on 25 May 2025. See copy of the resignation letter attached.
3.3 Subsequent developments within the party resulted in the emergence of H.E. Senator David Mark as National Chairman and H.E. Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola as National Secretary with the other members of the extant NWC.
3.4 Hon. Nafiu Bala thereafter instituted an action before the Federal High Court challenging the leadership of the party.
3.5 In the course of those proceedings, an ex parte application seeking interim orders against INEC was refused by the trial court.
3.6 The matter proceeded to the Court of Appeal, which directed that:
the substantive suit be given accelerated hearing, and
the parties maintain the status quo ante bellum and refrain from acts capable of foisting a fait accompli on the trial court.
3.7 Counsel to Hon. Nafiu Bala subsequently wrote to INEC requesting that the Commission withdraw recognition from the current leadership of the party.
- APPLICABLE LEGAL FRAMEWORK
4.1 Constitutional Provisions
Under Section 287(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended):
The decisions of the Court of Appeal shall be enforced in any part of the Federation by all authorities and persons. However, the obligation to enforce such decisions extends only to the actual orders made by the Court, and not to interpretations or constructions advanced by litigants.
4.2 Electoral Act Provisions
Under the Electoral Act 2026, political parties are required to notify the Independent National Electoral Commission of their leadership and governing bodies.
However, the Commission does not possess authority to determine internal leadership disputes within political parties, except where a court of competent jurisdiction makes a clear and binding pronouncement.
This position reflects the well-established principle that the internal administration of political parties is primarily a domestic affair of the party itself.
4.3 Meaning of Status Quo Ante Bellum
The Supreme Court has consistently defined status quo ante bellum as the last actual, peaceable and uncontested state of affairs existing before the dispute arose.
See:
(1) FIRST AFRICAN TRUST BANK LTD v. EZEGBU (1993) LPELR-1279 (SC)
(2) AKAPO v. HAKEEM-HABEEB (1992) LPELR-325 (SC)
4.4 Interpretation of Court Orders
Court orders must be interpreted strictly according to their terms.
See:
(1) SKYE BANK v. IWU (2017) 16 NWLR (Pt.1590) 24 (SC).
Administrative authorities cannot extend the scope of a judicial order beyond what the court expressly decided.
4.5 Internal Affairs of Political Parties
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that leadership disputes within political parties are primarily internal matters.
See:
(1) DALHATU v. TURAKI (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt.843) 310 (SC)
(1) PDP v. SYLVA (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt.1316) 85 (SC)
(3) LADO v. CPC (2012) 18 NWLR (Pt.1331) 76 (SC)
4.6 Doctrine of Functus Officio
Where a person relinquishes an office or exhausts the authority attached to it, he becomes functus officio and cannot continue to exercise powers associated with that office.
See:
(1) A.G. FEDERATION v. ABUBAKAR (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt.1041) 1 (SC)
(2) OLOWU v. ABOLORE (1993) 5 NWLR (Pt.293) 255
4.7 Locus Standi
A litigant must demonstrate sufficient legal interest in the subject matter of the dispute.
See:
(1) ADESANYA v. PRESIDENT OF NIGERIA (1981) 5 SC 112
4.8 Estoppel by Conduct
Under Section 169 of the Evidence Act, a person who has made a representation by conduct cannot later act inconsistently with that representation.
- LEGAL ANALYSIS
5.1 Proper Meaning of the Status Quo Ante Belum Order
The order directing the parties to maintain the status quo ante bellum must be interpreted in accordance with the settled definition adopted by the Supreme Court.
The relevant status quo is therefore the last uncontested state of affairs immediately preceding the dispute.
From the available facts, the dispute arose after Senator David Mark assumed office and Hon. Nafiu Bala initiated legal proceedings challenging that development. It follows that the relevant status quo cannot logically refer to a period before those appointments occurred.
5.2 Whether INEC Must Derecognize the Current Leadership
The order of the Court of Appeal did not:
invalidate the appointments of Senator David Mark or Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola and the other members of the extant NWC;
direct INEC to withdraw recognition from them; or
restrain them from performing the functions of their offices.
The Court merely issued a preservatory order pending the determination of the substantive suit.
Consequently, no legal basis exists for the counsels to Bala Nafiu to urge INEC to withdraw recognition from the current officers of the party.
5.3 Legal Effect of the Resignation of Hon. Nafiu Bala
Hon. Nafiu Bala resigned from the National Working Committee on 25 May 2025. See letter of resignation attached.
By that act, he ceased to exercise authority within the governing structure of the party and became functus officio with respect to that office.
Furthermore, his resignation constitutes a representation by conduct, thereby giving rise to estoppel under Section 169 of the Evidence Act.
5.4 Question of Locus Standi
Having voluntarily exited the governing structure of the party, the legal standing of Hon. Nafiu Bala to challenge the leadership of the party is without any legal foundation in law.
Under the principles laid down in Adesanya v. President of Nigeria, a litigant must demonstrate a direct legal interest in the subject matter of the dispute.
- CONSIDERED LEGAL OPINION
6.1 Having carefully considered the facts, statutory provisions and judicial authorities, it is our considered opinion that:
(a) The order of the Court of Appeal directing parties to maintain the status quo ante bellum refers to the last uncontested state of affairs immediately preceding the dispute, not a period predating the appointments being challenged.
(b) The Court of Appeal did not order INEC to withdraw recognition from Senator David Mark or Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola and the extant NWC.
(c) There is no subsisting court order restraining the Commission from recognizing the present leadership of the African Democratic Congress.
(d) The resignation of Hon. Nafiu Bala from the National Working Committee renders him functus officio with respect to that office.
(e) His resignation also raises substantial issues of estoppel and locus standi in relation to his challenge to the leadership of the party.
(f) Issues are joined with him with respect to these matters at the Federal High Court, which merit the court is yet to determine, and has been directed by the order of the Court of Appeal to be expeditiously determined by the court.
(g) The request to INEC to do the bidding of Hon. Bala Nafiu by his counsel, is to use subterfuge to administratively achieve what he is yet to judicially obtain, i.e., administratively determine the merit of his suit before the Federal High Court and present the court with a fait accompli. This is contrary to the doctrine of subjudice and is the very opposite of what the Federal High Court declined to do by refusing to grant him an exparte order for derecognition of the H.E Sen. David Mark led NWC and the Court of Appeal order for maintenance of the status quo ante bellum pending the final determination of the suit on its merit at the Federal High Court.
Accordingly, any request that the Independent National Electoral Commission withdraw recognition from the present officers of the African Democratic Congress cannot be justified on the basis of the order of the Court of Appeal, which is not only subjudice but also at variance with the request made by the counsel to Hon. Bala Nafiu.
Respectfully submitted.
Alex Ter Adum, Ph.D
alexadum45@gmail.com
