Contrary to the position of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as regards the legal implications of the intra-party dispute rocking the emergent opposition African Democratic Congress (ADC), renowned legal scholar and radical activist, Professor Itse Sagay, contends that the status quo in the party is none other than the Senator David Mark -led National Working Committee (NWC). In a telephone interview with The New Telegraph, the erstwhile Chairman of the Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC) strongly disagreed with the decision of the electoral body.
The umpire was to de-recognise the ADC’s David Mark-led leadership, which it had earlier legitimised, in compliance with a court order to maintain the status quo ante bellum pending the determination of a suit before it.
To be fair to Professor Sagay, he gave a proviso in responding to the question he was asked. According to him, “But, within that ruling, if there is a clear order there that the leadership of the African Democratic Congress should not be recognised, as the correct leadership of the ADC, pending the hearing of the main case, then, of course, INEC will not have a choice. I have not seen the ruling”. But when told that the court had ordered that the status quo ante bellum be maintained, Professor Sagay averred that “The David Mark leadership is the status quo; they are the recognised leadership. They took over from the former leadership, which voluntarily surrendered its leadership to David Mark. So, they are the status quo. So, I don’t understand why INEC should de-recognise them.”
The problem is that Professor Sagay ‘s position insinuates that there is no linguistic or legal distinction between maintaining the status quo and maintaining the status quo ante bellum, as the court specifically ordered. Even more telling, when asked if INEC may have acted ultra vires, the eminent constitutional lawyer responded: “I don’t even want to go legal. I want to go political, the rationale, and the acceptable in our circumstances. The impression they are giving now is that they want to eliminate a strong challenge to the APC… Personally, I feel dismayed about what INEC is doing. Because it seems they feel that a strong opposition should not be allowed to contest.”
Now, must INEC be indifferent to court orders in order to facilitate the emergence of strong opposition candidates in the next general elections? Is it indeed the business of the electoral umpire to help organise a strong and viable opposition to the ruling party? Does the imperative of a vigorous opposition for a healthy democracy, critical as it is, exempt opposition leaders from adhering to stipulated organisational and constitutional rules and regulations in the pursuit of their legitimate aspirations?
Incidentally, cerebral and respected columnist, veteran trade unionist and human rights activist, Owei Lakemfa, adopts a not too dissimilar viewpoint in his column on Monday this week. In his words, “Anyone with a modicum of intelligence should know that the status quo is at the time the court case was initiated or, at worst, before the dissolution of the old executive. But the Amupitan INEC intentionally misinterpreted this to mean the removal of the ADC leadership, leaving an organisation without any leadership. Even amongst anarchists, there must be leaders. The obvious beneficiary of this conscious illogicality is the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC)”. Again, like Professor Sagay, Owei Lakemfa assumes that maintaining the status quo and maintaining the status quo ante bellum are synonymous.
Could it be that the court was only engaging in fashionable linguistic cosmetics when it referenced status quo ante bellum? Or does the phrase have any implications for whatever position INEC would take on the matter? An online legal resource states that “The primary difference is that status quo refers to the current, existing state of affairs, while status quo ante bellum refers to the state of affairs that existed before a war or a conflict began. Status quo maintains the present, whereas status quo ante bellum reverses changes to restore pre-war conditions.”
The resource explains further that status quo refers to “The current, existing, or “normal” state of affairs, usually right now. Used in politics and law to describe keeping things as they are right now, rather than changing them. Status quo is now; Status quo ante bellum is “before the conflict “. Status quo freezes the present; status quo ante bellum reverses to the past”. INEC’s position that the status quo ante bellum refers to the situation before the emergence of the David Mark -led NWC, which is the subject of litigation before the court, is certainly not unreasonable, even though only the court can give the final, binding interpretation.
Comrade Owei Lakemfa stoutly defends the legality of the processes leading to the resignation of the former Ralph Okey Nwosu-led NWC and the emergence of the David Mark -led NWC Caretaker Committee. He insinuates that those who take a contrary position have sided with “backwardness and retrogression” for “pecuniary reasons”. But we must assume that his own stance is high-minded, principled and altruistic. According to Comrade Lakemfa, the NWC of the ADC had a series of meetings culminating in a trinity of proposals to its National Executive Council (NEC).
He iterated the proposals duly adopted by the NEC of the ADC, thus, “The first was to accept a wider coalition in which new members would be infused, and the ADC would become the central opposition party. Secondly, that the NWC be dissolved and a new Caretaker Committee established to run the party. Thirdly, that the NEC, using its constitutional powers, should waive the provision that the new entrants should spend two years as members before being eligible to be officers of the party. All three proposals were put forth without any counter motion and adopted by the party NEC meeting of July 29, 2025, at the New Chelsea Hotel, Abuja.”
Surely, the ADC is not a lawless organisation. It is governed by a binding constitution which prescribes procedures, rules, regulations, and modalities for party membership, leadership at various levels, resignation, conduct, discipline, etc. Did the steps articulated by Comrade Lakemfa in his piece conform to these constitutional stipulations of the party? For instance, Article 23 Section (A) of the ADC Constitution states that “No amendment to this Constitution shall be valid except made at the National Convention”. Section (B) subsection ii of this Article states that “Notice of the proposed amendment shall be given to the National Secretary at least two months before the date of the National Convention. The notice, which shall be in writing, shall contain a clear statement of the amendment and reasons for the same.”
In a similar vein, subsection iii provides that “Notice of the amendment shall be given to the National Secretary who shall cause the same to be circulated to the State branches of the party for production at least a month before the date of the Convention”. As events have later turned out to prove, the State branches of the ADC were not even carried along in the decision of the former leadership to quit en masse and hand over to a completely new set of fresh entrants into the party. According to Comrade Lakemfa, “The process the INEC observed and endorsed was not that of individual resignations, but the constitutional dissolution of the entire ADC leadership and its replacement.”
But does the ADC Constitution provide for this kind of collective party leadership harakiri? It is doubtful. Owei Lakemfa claims further that “The leaders of what turned out to be the ADC coalition tried to register a brand new party but were denied”. Again, this claim is of doubtful veracity. Had this been so, there would have been considerable media uproar. That the opposition has preponderant support in the traditional and social media is obvious. Afterall, obeying court orders, INEC has registered the Democratic Leadership Alliance (DLA) and the Nigeria Democratic Party (NDP) while also facilitating the Grassroots Initiative Party (GRIP) to complete its registration as a party.
It is instructive that the ADC at its contentious National Convention in Abuja on Tuesday, an exercise held in defiance of court order and without INEC in attendance, submitted the earlier proposals and amendments to its Constitution for the ratification and approval of the Convention as demanded by its own laws. This was an admission that the earlier processes adopted were alien to the ADC Constitution and thus inchoate. No less instructive is the fact that the David Mark -led interim NWC has returned to the Federal High Court to validate its legality while also seeking a pronouncement of the Supreme Court on what it perceives as unconstitutional Judicial intrusion in the affairs of the party.
The courts are rightly giving accelerated hearings to these legal remedies that the aggrieved ADC leaders ought to have sought before now. Meanwhile, ordinarily enlightened, restrained, and patriotic public intellectuals like Professor Itse Sagay and Comrade Owei Lakemfa have passed preemptive magisterial, ex-cathedra judgements on the matter, making unfair and damning indictments of INEC in the process. What then should we expect from the feral jungle known as social media?
