Despite the Supreme Court ruling which paved the way for the re-listing of the Senator David Mark-led National Working Committee of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) on its portal, the storm seems not to be over for the opposition party.

This is as the party, which has said it is poised to sack the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) in the 2027 general election still have other suits to contend with.

The ADC has been embroiled in a leadership crisis, with former Deputy National Chairman of the party, Nafiu Bala Gombe, laying claim to the leadership of the party, after the resignation of the former National Chairman, Okey Nwosu. The party’s National Working Committee (NWC) led by Nwosu, had resigned to pave way for the emergence of a new leadership led by former Senate President, David Mark, as National Chairman, after notable opposition politicians adopted the party as the “coalition party” for the 2027 polls.

Recently, INEC delisted the Mark-led NWC from its portal, citing the order of the Court of Appeal, which directed parties in the suit filed by Gombe to maintain status quo ante bellum pending the determination of the suit. Also, INEC stated it would not accept any communication from the ADC until the matter is determined.

In the aftermath of the re-recognition of the Mark led NWC, a group of state chairmen met in Abuja, and appointed the chairman of the Kogi State chapter, Kingsley Ogga as national chairman.

Nonetheless, the Supreme Court in its ruling in an appeal filed by the Mark-led NWC, on Thursday, set aside the order of the Court of Appeal that parties in the suit maintain status quo ante bellum pending the determination of the substantive suit, and directed the parties to return to the Federal High Court for the substantive suit.

While the apex court’s ruling has elicited jubilation in the Mark’s camp, critics say the celebration is premature, owing to the fact, that there are at least two pending court cases against the party. They include Suit No FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025 filed by Gombe against the Mark led NWC, in which the Supreme Court has directed parties to return to the court for the hearing and determination of the subject matter, and Suit No FHC/ ABJ/CS/2637/25 filed by the Incorporated Trustees of the National Forum of Former Legislators (NFFL) seeking the deregistration of the ADC and four other political parties, over alleged non-compliance with constitutional requirements.

Ogga, while insisting that he is the rightful chairman of the ADC, told Saturday Sun that the Mark-led NWC still have more legal hurdles to cross. The claimant to the ADC leadership noted that his group recently secured a judgment invalidating the state congresses conducted by the Mark led NWC. He stated that his camp would be approaching INEC soon with the Certified True Copy (CTC) of the judgment it got from a Federal High Court in Abuja

According to him, “There is no judgment in favour of David Mark. They referred them back (to the Federal High Court). What the Supreme Court ruled is on the status quo ante bellum. For us we have got judgment. You know they have disqualified all their congresses. They don’t have the right to go for the congress. The judgment we have, by the time INEC sees the CTC; they will know what to do. We have gotten judgment already and we will be approaching INEC.”

However, the ADC National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, told Saturday Sun that the Mark-led NWC is aware that it is fighting a long-drawn battle, stating that “yesterday (Thursday) was not the end of the war. It was just the end of one battle and there will be many more battles to fight and we are ready for those. “

Abdullahi said contrary to views in some quarters, there is no uncertainty in the ADC in respect of the 2027 general election. According to him, “today under the law, the Bonafide leadership of the ADC is Senator David Mark national chairman and Rauf Aregbesola as the national secretary. There is no question about that and any action they take is legitimate, until a court rules otherwise. And when a court rules otherwise, it will not have a retroactive effect. So, we are not worried about that. There is no uncertainty.”

He explained that the Supreme Court ruling has removed the basis on which INEC de-recognised the ADC leadership, which was impeding their preparation for the next general election. According to him, “INEC took an illegal action to derecognise our leadership. That was the problem. What we were seeking was an opportunity to remove that encumbrance and that was done yesterday.”

On the substantive suit before Federal High Court, the ADC spokesman said: “The courts are there to give justice. So, if they deliver a judgment that we are happy with and we believe that the court has dealt with us fairly, we will take it and move on, even if it is against us. But if we feel that there is miscarriage of justice, we will say so. And we will appeal it and we will go up to the highest court in the land.”

He added that the ADC is also ready for the suit seeking its de-registration, noting that “We will meet in court. Government is not even hiding it that they are behind them. It is the Attorney-General that is leading this one. Why are they so interested in the deregistration of another party?”

Meanwhile, lawyers have weighed in on the Supreme Court judgment restoring the Senator David Mark led-leadership of the ADC, submitting that though it might appear like a decisive victory for the opposition party, the legal battle is not yet a win for the party.

Speaking on the implication of the Supreme Court judgment, lawyer and Special Counsel, Aloy Ejimakor said that the Supreme Court judgment delivered on Thursday concerning the leadership crisis rocking the African Democratic Congress (ADC) was not yet a win for the party.

According to him, the judgment only provided a narrow relief on one specific procedural issue but leaves the core disputes unresolved, even leaving open the door to continued litigation.

He said what the Supreme Court actually and specifically decided was to set aside the Court of Appeal’s “status quo ante bellum” order that had directed the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to maintain the pre-crisis leadership position.

Ejimakor said the judgment means that INEC’s earlier removal of Senator David Mark (as National Chairman) and other officials (e.g., National Secretary Rauf Aregbesola) from its portal—based on the now-voided status quo order—is invalidated. He said the David Mark-led faction’s leadership is therefore restored but only on an interim basis.

He stated that the court did not decide who the authentic national leadership of the ADC is because it ordered the parties back to the Federal High Court for an accelerated hearing of the originating suit on its merits (the full trial of the leadership tussle between the Mark-led caretaker committee faction and the faction loyal to figures such as Nafiu Gombe).

He said: “The substantive leadership dispute remains alive and pending at the Federal High Court: The original suit (filed by aggrieved members challenging the validity of the caretaker committee, the national convention, and related decisions) must now be heard fully. Whichever side loses at the High Court can still appeal up to the Court of Appeal/Supreme Court again. Until that chain of litigation ends with finality, INEC and the courts can continue to treat the party’s leadership as contested. This directly affects the party’s ability to sponsor candidates, hold congresses, or be fully recognised for the 2027 elections.

“There are broader deregistration threats and other potential suits. Only days ago, some ex-lawmakers filed processes seeking a court order to compel INEC to deregister ADC on grounds of alleged failure to meet statutory requirements. This suit remains a live threat ADC’s 2027 ambitions.

“Nigerian political parties frequently face multiple, overlapping suits (factional leadership, congress validity, candidate nomination, INEC de-listing, etc.). The PDP’s own leadership battles over the years illustrate how a Supreme Court “win” on one narrow issue often leaves other fronts open for fresh or continued litigation. The ADC is now in exactly that position.”

“INEC had earlier de-recognised the Mark faction precisely because of the now-voided status quo order. While yesterday’s judgment restores the faction’s names to INEC portal, the commission’s final recognition for 2027 ballot access still depends on the outcome of the remitted High Court trial and compliance with the party’s constitution and the Electoral Act. Any further delay or adverse ruling could still lead to exclusion.”

The lawyer stated that until the Federal High Court (and any subsequent appeals) finally determines the authentic leadership and the party complies fully with electoral laws, the ADC remains entangled in legal uncertainty. “The party is freer to operate today than it was yesterday but myriad legal minefields remain,” he said.

In his contribution, a seasoned lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) who pleaded to be an anonymous contributor, submitted that the effect of the Supreme Court judgment restoring the David Mark led- executive is temporary, pending the final determination of the case at the lower Court.

“Despite the apparent legal victory, the existence of multiple factions within the party continues to pose a threat to its stability. The emerging litigation creates uncertainty around the decisions taken by the current leadership, especially if the trial court eventually decides otherwise.

“This lingering legal tussle weakens the party’s internal cohesion at a critical political moment,” he argued.

He noted that the more critical and pressing issue is the May 10 deadline set by INEC for political parties to submit their membership registers ahead of the 2027 general elections.

“With barely days to meet this requirement, the ADC faces both logistics and legal challenges. This is because any dispute over the legitimacy of the party’s leadership could complicate the submission process or it could even raise question about the authenticity of the register presented.

“If factions within the ADC fail to align quickly, there is a risk or parallel submissions or internal dispute over which list represents the authentic membership of the party. Such confusion could create another crisis of regulatory scrutiny or even sanctions from INEC.”

He said until the trial court delivers a final judgment and the party resolves its internal divisions, the ADC remains in a precarious situation between legal uncertainty and electoral deadline.

A former Chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Ikeja Branch, Dave Ajetomobi, also clarified that the Supreme Court’s recent decision on the African Democratic Congress (ADC) leadership dispute does not resolve the substantive issues in contention.

Speaking on the ruling, Ajetomobi explained that the appeals considered up to the apex court were merely interlocutory in nature, stressing that the main case is still pending before the Federal High Court.

According to him, the appeal that reached the Supreme Court stemmed from an earlier order of the Federal High Court.

He noted that while the matter was before the Court of Appeal, the appellate court made orders that were neither sought by the parties nor directly related to the issues under appeal.

He said the Supreme Court has now corrected that procedural anomaly by returning the case to the lower court for proper hearing and determination.

He added that with the latest ruling, the case effectively returns to its earlier stage at the Federal High Court, where the parties are expected to fully present their arguments.

Ajetomobi further noted that the legal process is far from over, explaining that the final determination of the dispute could still make its way back to the Supreme Court after passing through the Court of Appeal.

“It is still a long way ahead,” he said, adding that the ruling, for now, offers a temporary reprieve for one of the key figures in the dispute, David Mark.

“The Supreme Court’s decision is widely seen as a procedural reset, paving the way for a comprehensive hearing of the leadership tussle at the trial court.”

Lagos based lawyer, Sonayon Hunjo, also argued that the Supreme Court judgment on the leadership dispute within the African Democratic Congress (ADC) does not settle the substantive issues in contention but rather reopens the case for proper adjudication.

According to Hunjo, the apex court did not determine who the rightful leaders of the party are. Instead, it addressed a procedural flaw and directed that the matter be returned to the Federal High Court for a full hearing on its merits.

“The case is not concluded on its merits. The Supreme Court has not determined the authentic leadership of the ADC. It has only corrected a procedural issue and asked that the matter be properly heard,” Hunjo explained.

The implication of the ruling, he noted, is that all parties involved must now return to the Federal High Court to present evidence supporting their claims.

The court will then deliver a binding judgment after thoroughly examining the issues.

Hunjo observed that the decision introduces a period of uncertainty for the ADC, as the absence of a definitive leadership structure may affect internal cohesion, candidate selection processes, and strategic planning ahead of the 2027 general elections.

He also pointed out that the judgment places a responsibility on the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to act cautiously. With the earlier court order that influenced its position now set aside, INEC is expected to maintain neutrality pending the final determination of the case.

“The ruling effectively resets the contest. No faction can claim a final legal victory at this stage. All claimants must return to court, prove their legitimacy, and await a conclusive decision,” Hunjo said.

He stressed that until the Federal High Court delivers its judgment, all claims to leadership within the party remain unresolved and legally inconclusive.

Hunjo said the Supreme Court’s position is clear: the dispute must be properly heard and decided at the trial court level.

“The apex court has simply said, ‘Go back and properly hear the case,’” he added, noting that the decisive phase of the leadership battle now shifts to the Federal High Court. (The Sun)