By Abdulkabir Badmos, Esq.
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/TheNigerialawyer-WhatsApp-Channel1.jpg")
The Supreme Court had on Thursday 30th April, 2026 delivered its decisions regarding the leadership crises rocking the Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP) and the African Democratic Congress (ADC), respectively. These were the cases of Senator David Mark v. Nafiu Bala Gombe & 4 Ors and Peoples Democratic Party v. Sule Lamido & Ors. While we await the release of the certified true copies of the decisions of the apex court in both appeals, this commentary is entirely based on the views of the writer who sat in the open court to receive these rulings.
For full disclosure, the writer as counsel in the case pending at the Federal High Court in the Nafiu Bala’s case, shall limit this commentary to the consideration of the Supreme Court’s decision on the interlocutory appeal and academic examination of the jurisprudential basis, of that case.
The judicial response to matters of national importance
By virtue of section 6 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), the powers to adjudicate over disputes, in their various forms, are vested in the Nigerian courts. Sitting at the top of the pyramid of courts in Nigeria is the Supreme Court. The apex Court created by virtue of section 230 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) sitting either in its original or appellate jurisdiction has the burden of making decisions that not only take into account the current state of the laws but issues of urgent national importance that shapes and gives necessary effect to its judgments.
Thus, it is not unusual for parties to look up to the Supreme Court, in relevant cases where appeals lie to it, to demand a review of facts and circumstances which have allegedly been hitherto misapplied by the lower courts in the parties’ litigations. When the Supreme Court steps in to correct such anomaly, they are said to be exercising their powers of shaping public policy.
Instances where this situation has occurred in our recent past are many but the writer will like to refer to the Naira redesign case of Attorney General of Kaduna State & Ors v. Attorney General of the Federation & 2 Ors (SC/CV/162/2023)[i] where the Supreme Court through its judgment nullified the naira redesign policy of the Buhari Administration that had visited untold hardship on the majority of Nigerians who witnessed unprecedented cash crunch. The apex court decision was the antidote that brought relief to the masses in that instant.
Another similar experience was the case of Skye Bank v Iwu[ii] where the Supreme Court resolved the previously conflicting positions of the Court of Appeal regarding its appellate jurisdiction over appeals on labour related matters emanating from the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN). The Supreme Court’s majority decision in that case saved the day to give effect to the public policy relating to right of appeals.
It is important to acknowledge that several legal scholars criticize this occasional intervention of the apex court. Some even brand it as “judicial legislations”. These criticisms (rightly or wrongly) are not the focus of this intervention.
In recent times in Nigeria, there have been accusations and counter-accusations within the political class of an alleged attempt to drive the country towards a one-party state. The strategy to achieving this, it is alleged, is by using known agents of the ruling party to destabilize the opposition parties or delegitimize them. These, to a very large extent, has accounted for the squabbles that many opposition parties in Nigeria have witnessed in the last couple of years leading to several litigations between these warring factions.
The Supreme Court, seated at the head of the judicial ladder is however eventually called upon to determine which of these factions is validly holding office in compliance with the constitution of the party and the Electoral Act applicable thereof. This onerous task is what the Supreme Court undertook on Thursday regarding the PDP and the ADC appeals now under review.
The PDP appeals and “punitive” majority decision
It is important to state that the decisions in the PDP appeals were a split decision, on a ratio of 3:2. The panel presided over by his Lordship Muhammad Lawal Garba, JSC with Iheme-Nwosu and S.A. Adah, JJSC, hold the majority view while their lordships Tsamani and M.B. Umar JJSC held the minority views. Most of the facts leading to the appeal are in public so I will not bother replicating them here.
The lead decision of the Supreme Court in this appeal was delivered by S.A. Adah JSC. The Appellant, PDP, identified a sole issue for determination in the appeal to ask whether the trial court had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit of the 1st Respondent which bothers on internal affairs of the political party. The other respondents formulated their issues along these lines and equally made arguments thereon.
In resolving the appeal, his Lordship raised the issue suo motu, of whether the PDP convention held in Ibadan, Oyo state was not held in contravention of a valid order of the Federal High Court, Abuja. None of the parties addressed the Supreme Court on this point. There was no ground of appeal on it, nor any submission of counsel. The majority decision of the apex court was therefore, in my respectful view, clearly out to punish the party for its disobedience of court order and forum shopping for an order of the High Court of Oyo State just to be able to conduct the convention at all cost.
Disobedience of court orders, even when same is being challenged is one which no court takes with levity. The apex court, per Adah JSC had very strong words to condemn the actions of the PDP in forum shopping and proceeding to conduct the Ibadan Convention in disobedience to the order of court. The appeal was therefore ruled to be an abuse of court process and no pronunciation was therefore made on the merits. It was on this premise and sole basis that the majority decision dismissed the appeal and the cross appeal thereon.
The minority decision of the court, delivered by Tsamani JSC while equally condemning the acts of disobedience of court order and forum shopping, however disagreed with the majority decision. The first point of dissent, according to his lordship, is because the issue of abuse of court process was not raised by any of the parties at any point of the proceedings from the trial court up to the Supreme Court. He cited authorities of the same court stating the policy of the court not to go into their chambers to fish of causes of actions for parties which are not borne out of the arguments before them.[iii]
In addition, Tsamani JSC went into the merits of the case and found that indeed the cause of action of the Plaintiff (Alhaji Sule Lamido), which is sale of nomination forms to contest as the Chairman of the party, falls squarely within the realms of political questions which the apex court or any court for that matter is prohibited from entertaining. His Lordship cited a decision of the apex court (the writer couldn’t get the citation) per AGIM JSC which according to him was on all fours with the instant case and as such finds no reason to depart therefrom. On this basis, he allowed the appeal.
Given the above exposition by the learned jurists of the Supreme Court, it is the writer’s respectful view that the apex court has used the PDP appeal to send a clear warning to political actors in Nigeria who believe they can defy the orders of a competent court without retribution. Listening to the majority and minority decisions, it is clear that the Supreme Court via the majority decisions wanted to make an example of the violators of the court order. Whilst the minority decisions seem to be more reflective of the consistent approach of the Supreme Court in resolving appeals, the judicial policy in this case was aimed at setting right contemptuous conducts and disobedience of court orders. It is difficult to sympathize with the PDP in this instant because they could have out of deference for the court order, appealed the decision immediately instead of forum shopping at the High Court of Oyo State. In which case, they may not have been held to be in contempt of court.[iv]
On the final analysis, contrary to the Supreme Court’s established practice of sticking to the issues raised by parties in the resolution of disputes submitted before it, the majority decision did not consider the issue of “internal affairs” raised by the appellant at all in reaching it decision to dismiss the appeal. It is therefore clear that the court’s decision on this appeal had prioritized its policy of punishing contempt of court over that of not raising issue suo motu and deciding same without inviting parties to address it on the issue.
The ADC appeal and the “status quo ante bellum” nullification
The judgment of the Supreme Court in this appeal is a unanimous decision of the same panel that heard and ruled on the PDP appeal. This means all the five justices agreed to the common conclusion. The presiding justice, M.L. Garba, JSC read and delivered the lead judgment of the court. Two issues were submitted for adjudication in this appeal: whether the appellant required leave of court to file his interlocutory appeal to the court of appeal, and; whether the court of appeal was correct to have granted the order of status quo ante bellum. With respect to the first issue, the Supreme Court after the considering the grounds of appeal of the appellant found that they were interlocutory orders of the court made upon an exercise of discretionary powers that did not finally dispose of the matter at the trial court. Hence, the requirement for obtaining leave of court is mandatory.[v] This finding of the Supreme Court was satisfying because the position on that point is fairly settled and it appears no special circumstances was shown on the face of the record to justify departing from this notorious principle. The decision of the Court of Appeal in this regard was affirmed and the appeal regarding this issue was dismissed.
Contrary to the known practice of the Supreme Court where after deciding the most important issue as in the instant case, it will refuse to pronounce on the other issues as they are deemed to have become academic, the Court proceeded to decide the issue two formulated on whether the Court of Appeal had the jurisdiction to make an order to maintain “status quo ante bellum” after the hearing and determining the appeal.
The Supreme Court took this route in my respectful view, for two reasons; first to address the general outcry that the purported implementation of the said order by INEC has caused in the polity. Secondly, to clarify the state of the law regarding the maintenance of the status quo ante bellum in our jurisprudence. Garba JSC held that the Court of Appeal, after disposing of the appeal before it on the merits lacks the vires to make any purported preservatory orders anymore. In short, it has become functus officio after dismissing the appeal and remitting the case back to the trial court for accelerated hearing. The order of the Court of Appeal directing maintenance of “status quo ante bellum” was therefore set aside by the apex court. The appeal was allowed in part, only as it relates to the order of status quo ante bellum.
Again, this is a policy decision of the Supreme Court in response to public outcry about the unjust implementation of the order of “status quo ante bellum” by the Independent National Electoral Commission. Ordinarily, in cases that are not as sensitive as the ADC appeal, the Supreme Court would have summarily dismissed the appeal and decline jurisdiction to entertain what may be described as academic questions. This is because if the court has found that the main question in the appeal is incompetent, then incidental orders such as that directing maintain status quo ante bellum become academic.[vi]
Worthy of mentioning that in delivering the judgment in the Sen. David Mark’s appeal, the court considered the preliminary objection raised by Nafiu Bala’s lawyers on the ground that the former’s grounds of appeal are of mixed law and facts and as such no further appeal could lie to the Supreme Court. The cited the authorities Anyanwu v. Emmanuel[vii] amongst others to that effect.
The apex court, while reviewing its decisions in Anyawu’s case vis-à-vis the provisions of section 233 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) held that by the authority of FRN v. Gidado, which is latter in time to Anyawu’s case, despite the deletion of sub section 3 of section 233 of the 1999 CFRN, the supreme Court retains the powers to grant leave to persons to appeal to the Supreme Court on grounds of facts or mixed law and facts. The court therefore used the occasion to clarify that Anyanwu v. Emmanuel is no longer good law on the subject and urged parties and their counsel to desist from belaboring the court on the point.
Based on the above finding and fuller reasons given by the court, the preliminary objection of Nafiu Bala’s counsel was overruled before the court proceeded to determine the appeal on its merits. The admonition of the Supreme Court above has also necessitated a review of the writer’s expose on the requirement for leave to appeal on grounds of facts and mixed law and facts.[viii]
Thus, to conclude, it is not without doubt that the intervention of the Supreme Court in these two cases has had the effect of resetting the political landscape and restoring the confidence of many sympathetic to the cause of survival of opposition politics in Nigeria. While the academic debate on the correctness or motive for reaching these decisions rage on, it is undeniable that the Supreme Court has once again asserted itself as policy court as these decisions shall significantly shape the political alignments that will occur in the coming days.
Written by Abdulkabir Badmos, Esq.LLB (Ife), LLM (Lagos), Notary Public. Managing Partner, Bushrah Attorneys, Abuja, Nigeria. Email: aabadmos08@gmail.com
[i] (2023) 12 NWLR (PT.1899) 537 (SC).
[ii] (2017) 16 NWLR (Part 1590) 24 (SC).
[iii] Onward Ent. Ltd v. Olams Int’l Ltd (2025) 14 NWLR (PT.2006) 505 (SC).
[iv] Where a party has appealed a decision and filed a motion for stay of execution, he cannot be held to be in contempt of that decision. See Doma v. Ogiri (1997) 1 NWLR (PT.481) 322.
[v] Destra Inv. Ltd. V. FRN (2018) 8 NWLR (PT.1621) 335 at 343 Paras D-E (SC).
[vi] Oketere v. Gwagwa (2022) 9 NWLR (PT.1834) 51 at 57 Paras F-G (SC).
[vii] Anyanwu v. Emmanuel (2025) 14 NWLR (PT.2006) 531 (SC).
[viii] Available electronically at: https://thenigerialawyer.com/matters-arising-on-the-legal-requirement-of-seeking-leave-to-appeal-on-grounds-of-mixed-law-and-facts/.
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.
______________________________________________________________________
[A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
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
________________________________________________________________________ “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
