Every single big political party case in Nigeria follows the exact same script: internal leadership fight, one faction runs to court, the court issues a vague interim order dressed in Latin, total confusion erupts, INEC is paralysed, and the opposition party is crippled. It happened to the Labour Party. It happened to PDP. It happened to NNPP. Now it is happening to ADC. The courts have the power to stop this cycle. They choose not to. And that raises a question that can no longer be avoided: are the courts the solution to Nigeria’s political disputes, or are they the problem?
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/TheNigerialawyer-WhatsApp-Channel1.jpg")
The Pattern: Same Movie, Different Party, Every Single Time
If you have been watching Nigerian politics for any length of time, you already know the script. It never changes. Only the party name does.
Step one: a political party holds a congress, convention, or leadership meeting. Step two: a faction complains that the process violated the party constitution or the Electoral Act. Step three: the aggrieved side rushes to court for an injunction or a declaration. Step four: the court issues a vague interim order usually in Latin that both sides immediately interpret in their own favour. Step five: INEC is dragged in because it must recognise only lawful party leadership and valid nominations. Step six: total confusion. The party is paralysed. The opposition is weakened. And the ruling party benefits.
This exact script has played out in the Labour Party crisis, where the Lamidi Apapa and Julius Abure factions battled for control through competing court orders. It played out in PDP, where Nyesom Wike was accused of working against his own party from within. It played out in NNPP. And now, with the ADC where INEC has withdrawn recognition from both the David Mark-led faction and the Nafiu Bala faction after a Court of Appeal order to “maintain status quo ante bellum” the same movie is playing again.
The pattern is identical. The outcome is identical. The beneficiary is always the same: the ruling party. And at the centre of every single one of these crises is a court order that nobody can agree on.
“Status Quo Ante Bellum”: The Latin Phrase That Keeps Blowing Up Nigerian Politics
At the heart of the latest ADC crisis and at the heart of virtually every political party dispute that has come before Nigerian courts is a single Latin phrase that has become the most weaponised piece of legal language in the country: “status quo ante bellum.”
What does it mean? In plain English, it means “the state that existed before the dispute or conflict began.” In court, it is supposed to freeze the situation until the case is fully heard and determined. The idea is simple: don’t let anyone change the facts on the ground while the court is still deciding who is right.
But here is the problem: the phrase is so vague, so open to interpretation, that the moment a court utters it, both sides immediately start fighting over what “before the dispute” actually means. One side says the chairman is still the chairman. The other side says he is not. INEC says it does not know what the court meant. And the real war the war of interpretation begins.
In the ADC case, the Court of Appeal ordered the parties, including INEC, to “maintain status quo ante bellum.” What did that mean? Did it mean INEC should continue to recognise the David Mark-led leadership that it had already uploaded to its portal on September 9, 2025? Or did it mean INEC should go back to the position before the July 29, 2025 NEC meeting? Or did it mean something else entirely?
Nobody knows. And that is the point. The court did not spell it out. It dropped a Latin phrase and walked away. And the chaos that followed was entirely predictable.
Why Not Just Say It in Plain English? The Question Nobody Can Answer
Here is what a clear, competent court order should look like in a political party dispute:
“Pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit/application, the Court makes the following orders:
- David Mark shall continue to act as the National Chairman/Leader of the Party.
- His powers in the meantime shall be limited to only the following functions: [list them clearly].
- No person, group, or faction shall take any step to interfere with, usurp, or undermine the management and affairs of the Party in a manner contrary to the interim directions given by this Court.
- INEC shall not recognise, publish, or act upon any disputed leadership change until further order of this Court.
- Any person who acts in breach of this order shall be in contempt of court and shall be sanctioned accordingly.”
That is it. No Latin. No ambiguity. No room for “but the judge meant this” or “the status quo ante bellum includes/excludes this.” Every party knows exactly where they stand. INEC knows exactly what to do. The police know the limits. Party members know the rules.
So why do Nigerian courts refuse to issue orders like this? Why do they persist in using a Latin phrase that has caused confusion in every single political case it has been applied to? Why, in 2026, is the Nigerian judiciary still hiding behind highfalutin Latin when plain English would prevent the chaos that follows every political party dispute?
If the courts simply issued specific, numbered, crystal-clear interim orders instead of hiding behind Latin phrases, a lot of the endless appeals, counter-applications, and fresh crises that follow these political cases would disappear. The courts have the power to stop the confusion. They choose not to.
Case Study: How the ADC Crisis Was Made Worse by a Vague Court Order
The ADC crisis is the latest and most dramatic example of court-made confusion. The timeline is instructive:
On July 29, 2025, the ADC held a NEC meeting, monitored by INEC officials, which dissolved the old National Working Committee and inaugurated a new leadership with Senator David Mark as Chairman and Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola as Secretary. On September 9, 2025, INEC uploaded the names of the new ADC leadership to its portal. Meanwhile, Nafiu Bala Gombi who had already resigned as Deputy National Chairman on May 17, 2025 approached the Federal High Court on September 2, 2025 seeking to be recognised as Chairman.
The ADC’s legal team challenged the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court at the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal rejected the challenge but ordered the parties, including INEC, to “maintain status quo ante bellum.”
And then the chaos began.
The Mark-led faction argued that the status quo ante bellum was the leadership inaugurated on July 29 before any court case existed and that INEC should continue to recognise them. The Nafiu Bala camp argued that the status quo ante bellum meant reverting to the position before the July 29 meeting. And INEC, apparently confused or pretending to be confused issued a press statement on April 1, 2026, withdrawing recognition from both factions, effectively leaving the ADC without any recognised leadership.
Senator David Mark accused INEC of “inventing a status quo that never existed” and acting in contempt of the Court of Appeal. He said the ADC never lacked a duly constituted leadership, and that INEC’s action was an INEC invention not known to any Nigerian law.
All of this could have been avoided if the Court of Appeal had simply said, in plain English: “The leadership inaugurated on July 29, 2025 shall remain in place and INEC shall continue to recognise them pending the final determination of this case.” But the court chose Latin instead. And the country got chaos instead of clarity.
The Same Script: LP, PDP, NNPP — Every Time, the Court Is at the Centre
The ADC is not an isolated case. The exact same script played out in the Labour Party, where the Lamidi Apapa faction and the Julius Abure faction each obtained conflicting court orders from different courts, paralysing the party and contributing to its near-total collapse as a political force. INEC was caught in the middle, unable to determine which faction to recognise, and the party was effectively neutralised ahead of critical elections.
In PDP, the courts were weaponised by competing factions to challenge convention outcomes, leadership elections, and candidate selections. Competing interim orders from different jurisdictions created a situation where no one knew who was in charge, and the party’s ability to function as a cohesive opposition was severely damaged.
In NNPP, the pattern was identical: factional fight, court orders, INEC confusion, party paralysis. The Kwankwaso faction’s eventual departure to the ADC was itself partly driven by the legal chaos that had consumed the NNPP from within.
LP: court-made confusion. PDP: court-made confusion. NNPP: court-made confusion. ADC: court-made confusion. Four parties. Four crises. One common denominator: the Nigerian judiciary.
The Hard Question: Are Nigerian Courts Corrupt, or Just Incompetent?
This is the question that can no longer be avoided. When the same type of dispute keeps producing the same type of confusion, when vague orders keep serving the same political interests, and when the beneficiary of every single crisis is always the ruling party, people are entitled to ask: is this deliberate?
The safer answer is that the Nigerian judiciary has a serious perception-of-corruption problem, and not every bad judgment is proof of bribery. A lot of what people call “corruption” is sometimes a mix of weak case management, political pressure, inconsistent reasoning, and unclear drafting, which can look like bias even when direct proof of payment is absent.
But the safer answer is also the less honest answer. Because at some point, a pattern stops being coincidence and starts being policy. When every opposition party is crippled by the same type of court order, issued in the same vague language, producing the same result — the paralysis of the opposition and the consolidation of the ruling party’s dominance — the question of whether this is deliberate is not only fair, it is necessary.
Is it corruption or drafting failure? Is it bias or incompetence? Is it deliberate confusion or institutional weakness? The answer, at this point, may be: does it matter? The outcome is the same either way. Nigerian democracy is being damaged by its own courts.
The Deeper Problem: Courts as the Arena for Political Warfare
There is a deeper structural problem that must be acknowledged. Nigerian courts are involved in these disputes because political parties frequently fail to resolve their internal conflicts through their own constitutional mechanisms. When internal democracy breaks down, the courts become the default referee for what is essentially an internal political war.
But this explanation, while partially valid, does not excuse the courts. Because even if the courts are asked to intervene, they have a choice in how they intervene. They can issue clear, specific, enforceable orders that reduce confusion. Or they can issue vague Latin declarations that guarantee further litigation. The fact that they consistently choose the latter raises the question of whether the confusion is a feature, not a bug.
As one legal commentator observed: “Our courts can easily avoid a lot of this. I am trying to be kind by not saying the courts themselves are authors of confusion.” That kindness may no longer be warranted.
The Endgame: Are Courts Helping to Build a One-Party State?
The cumulative effect of the court-made chaos in LP, PDP, NNPP, and now ADC is unmistakable: every major opposition party in Nigeria has been weakened, paralysed, or rendered non-functional by litigation that was either initiated, enabled, or made worse by court orders.
The beneficiary, in every single case, has been the ruling All Progressives Congress. With 90% of the National Assembly and over 30 of Nigeria’s 36 Governors already in the APC, the systematic destruction of opposition parties through court-aided chaos is pushing Nigeria towards a de facto one-party state.
A one-party system is not good for Nigeria. Nigeria’s Constitution and democratic structure are built around a multi-party order. Without genuine competition, leaders become less accountable, corruption deepens, and political culture degenerates into a system where people join the strongest party to survive rather than to serve a public vision. What Nigeria needs is a genuinely competitive multi-party system with stronger internal party democracy, fewer defections, and better enforcement of electoral and constitutional rules.
If every opposition party is destroyed by court-made confusion, and the only party left standing is the ruling party, then the courts will have achieved what no military regime could: the creation of a civilian one-party state under the cover of judicial process.
What Must Change: The Courts Must Choose Clarity Over Latin
The solution is not complicated. For urgent political cases, the best court order should do three things:
- State the status of the parties in plain English — who is recognised, who is not, and on what basis.
- State the prohibited conduct clearly — what no one is allowed to do while the case is pending.
- State the duration of the order — how long it lasts and what triggers its expiry or review.
No Latin. No ambiguity. No room for competing interpretations. No excuse for INEC to claim confusion. No opportunity for political actors to spin a vague order in their favour. Just clear, enforceable, plain-English directions that everyone can understand and comply with.
If the courts adopted this approach, a huge portion of the endless appeals, counter-applications, contempt proceedings, and fresh crises that follow every political case in Nigeria would disappear overnight. The fact that they have not adopted it despite decades of evidence that Latin orders cause chaos says everything about whether the confusion is accidental or intentional.
Let us stop being kind. The Nigerian judiciary is not merely an innocent bystander caught between warring political factions. It is an active participant in a system that has, case after case, party after party, election after election, produced confusion where clarity was possible, paralysis where resolution was achievable, and chaos where order was within reach.
The courts have the power, the authority, and the legal tools to issue clear, unambiguous orders that would prevent the recurring cycle of political party crises. They choose not to. And whether that choice is driven by corruption, incompetence, political pressure, institutional culture, or some combination of all four, the result is the same: Nigerian democracy is being hollowed out from the inside, and the courts are holding the chisel.
The courts have the power to stop the confusion. They choose not to. And that is why the same movie keeps playing in every party — LP, PDP, NNPP, ADC — over and over again. Until the judiciary chooses clarity over Latin, precision over ambiguity, and accountability over convenience, Nigerian democracy will continue to be a victim of its own courts.
[A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
Available now for NGN 40,000 at ASC Publications, 10, Boyle Street, Onikan, Lagos. Beside High Court, TBS. Email publications@ayindesanni.com or WhatsApp +2347056667384. Purchase Link: https://paystack.com/buy/evidence-act-complete-annotation
______________________________________________________________________
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE FOR LAWYERS: A COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE
Reimagine your practice with the power of AI “...this is the only Nigerian book I know of on the topic.” — Ohio Books Ltd
Authored by Ben Ijeoma Adigwe, Esq., ACIArb (UK), LL.M, Dip. in Artificial Intelligence, Director, Delta State Ministry of Justice, Asaba, Nigeria.
Bonus:
Get a FREE eBook titled “How to Use the AI in Legalpedia and Law Pavilion” with every purchase.
How to Order: 📞 Call, Text, or WhatsApp: 08034917063 | 07055285878 📧 Email: benadigwe1@gmail.com 🌐 Website: www.benadigwe.com
Ebook Version: Access directly online at: https://selar.com/prv626
______________________________________________________________________ “Bridging Theory And Courtroom Practice” — Hagler Sunny Okorie, Nathaniel Ngozi Ikeocha Unveil ‘Functional’ Tort Law Book For Nigerian Legal System
The book, titled The Law of Torts in Nigeria: A Functional Approach, authored by Professor Hagler Sunny Okorie Ph.D and Ikeocha, Nathaniel Ngozi Esq, offers law students, practitioners, and academics a comprehensive guide to understanding and applying tort law in Nigerian courts. Interested buyers can place orders via the following contact numbers: 08028636615, 08037667945, 08032253813, or +234 902 196 2209.
______________________________________________________________________
“Enhance Legal Practice With Authoritative Reports” — Alexander Payne Offers Comprehensive Law Reports, Spanning Over A Century Of Nigerian Jurisprudence
Interested buyers are encouraged to place their orders and enquiries via:
0704 444 4777, 0704 444 4999, 0818 199 9888
Website: www.alexandernigeria.com
