Post by John Okiyi Kalu (@JOK)

ADC Judgment: Beware of the Ides of July

I have an observation on today’s ADC judgment based on what the party’s Legal Adviser, Prof. Oserheimen Osunbor, stated on Arise TV—that the party’s National Convention was already underway when the High Court issued its injunctive order on April 14, 2026.

To the best of my recollection, and without prejudice to the full facts of the case, the trial judge specifically asked ADC’s counsel whether it was true that the party was already holding its National Convention on the same day despite the pending proceedings. Counsel reportedly informed the court that it was not. The court understandably proceeded on the basis of counsel’s representation and delivered its judgment on the understanding that no convention was then taking place. Prof Osunbor must be aware of that exchange hence cannot approbate and reprobate on national television.

The High Court subsequently ordered that the convention should not hold. ADC nevertheless proceeded with the convention later that day. While the party may argue that it had not been formally served with the enrolled order before proceeding, the reality is that its legal counsel was present in court throughout the proceedings. Whether counsel had a duty to immediately advise the party is a matter for legal debate, but it could also be argued that the court was misled by counsel’s representation that the convention was not taking place that day.

Bearing in mind the Supreme Court’s recent pronouncements in the PDP matter, I believe ADC should approach any further appeal with extreme caution. If the Supreme Court concludes that there was a valid and subsisting High Court order restraining the convention, it may well agree with the majority decision of the Court of Appeal that the convention was conducted in defiance of a court order.

At that stage, the issue may cease to be whether the matter concerns the internal affairs of a political party. Instead, it would become a question of compliance with a subsisting court order. Nigerian courts, particularly the Supreme Court, have consistently frowned upon the disobedience of court orders, even where such orders are later found to be erroneous. The established principle remains that court orders must be obeyed until they are set aside by a competent court.

My views are based solely on Prof. Osunbor’s comments on Arise TV this evening and my recollection of the proceedings before the High Court on April 14, 2026. I am yet to read the Certified True Copy (CTC) of today’s judgment and remain open to reviewing my position once I have done so.

More broadly, I still believe many of these cases are less about preventing opposition parties from contesting elections than about distracting and weakening them through prolonged litigation. Unfortunately, opposition parties often contribute to their own legal troubles by creating openings—whether through acts or omissions—for political opponents to exploit internal disagreements.

Many of these disputes could have been resolved politically before finding their way to court. For example, allowing the aggrieved state chairmen to participate in ADC’s convention or primary process would not necessarily have prevented the ultimate emergence of Atiku as the party’s presidential candidate. In any event, many of those chairmen would have exited office upon the expiration of their tenures in May 2026. One is therefore left to ask: what was the urgency in excluding them?

As an aside, if the Supreme Court ultimately affirms today’s judgment of the Court of Appeal, the opposition should seriously consider rallying behind Peter Obi of the NDC, provided his party is free from similar legal encumbrances. That could produce the contest many Nigerians have long anticipated: Tinubu versus Obi in 2027.

-JOK
13/07/2026

0 likes · 0 comments · 0 shares