Son Tertsea, Abuja

Peter Obi, former Anambra governor and presidential candidate of Labour Party in the 2023 elections, has formally announced his leaving the African Democratic Congress ADC.

Obi announced his decision today, Sunday, 3rd April via his X handle attributing his decision to ADC’s internal crises.

But this decision (to quit) has been anticipated following the uncertainties surrounding his presidential ambition in the party toxified by many wars and the recent judicial decisions, including last week’s supreme court split verdict may be the last straw that broke the Carmel’s back.

Following this development, speculations regarding Obi’s next move for the 2027 presidential election are centred on a potential move to the National Democratic Congress (NDC).

Our sources indicate that Peter Obi and former Kano State Governor Rabiu Kwankwaso may already be in discussions to join the National Democratic Congress (NDC) as a new platform for their 2027 presidential ambitions.

Similarly, the NDC has reportedly called on Obi and Kwankwaso to join their platform, with indications they might be offered the presidential ticket.

By Our Reporter

Opposition Peoples Democratic Party’s (PDP) internal crisis has reached a “dangerous bend” following the supreme court’s split judgement upholding the nullification of its Ibadan convention.

PDP regretted that, “This leads the vehicle of our party towards a dangerous bend, which, if not carefully navigated, may not only affect the party but also multi-party democracy in our country.”

In the statement issued Wednesday signed by Comrade Ini Ememobong, its spokesperson, further described its group as the “Uncompromised PDP.”

Continuing it said, “Today, the Supreme Court of Nigeria, through a five-man panel presided over by Justice Mohammed Garba, in a split decision (3–2), upheld the judgments of the Court of Appeal and the Federal High Court, wherein the convention held in Ibadan was nullified.”

The party noted that the majority decision, delivered by Justices Chioma Nwosu-Iheme, Stephen Adah, and Mohammed Garba, was based on what the court described as disobedience to an existing court order.

The statement further added: “The three Justices (Chioma Nwosu-Iheme, Stephen Adah, and Garba) hinged their judgments on the disrespect of a valid, subsisting judgment of the Federal High Court and therefore held that, being in contempt, the appellants cannot be accommodated in the apex court, thereby dismissing the appeal.”.

It added: “However, the minority judgments by Justices Haruna Tsammani and Abubakar Umar held that the two appeals emanate from matters which are internal affairs of the PDP and are therefore non-justiciable.”

The dissenting justices also faulted the majority for raising issues not originally argued by the parties.

The PDP added: “Furthermore, they held that it is not the duty of the court to fish out matters to execute the case for the respondent, because the majority judgment undertook the duty of raising matters suo motu without calling on the parties to address them.”

But despite the uncertainty, the party expressed confidence as its internal structures would respond appropriately. “To this end, we are certain that the existing organs of the party will take the necessary steps to salvage the party and confer leadership on it going forward.”

The party warned that the implications of the judgment could extend beyond the party, potentially affecting Nigeria’s democratic system.

By Our Reporter

The Supreme Court on Thursday returned Senator David Mark as leader of African Democratic Congress, ADC, while also setting aside the “status quo ante bellum” order made in the leadership crisis rocking the party, ruling that the preservative directive could not validly continue after proceedings had effectively been concluded.

Justice Mohammed Garba, who delivered the lead judgement of the apex court held that while courts possess inherent powers to issue preservative orders to protect the subject matter of litigation, such powers cannot be exercised where there is “nothing left” to preserve.

The judgment arose from the legal battle over the recognition of former Senate President, David Mark, and former Osun State governor, Rauf Aregbesola, as National Chairman and National Secretary of the ADC, respectively.

The first respondent had approached the trial court through an originating summons, accompanied by motions seeking interim and interlocutory injunctions restraining the Independent National Electoral Commission from recognising Mark and Aregbesola as officers of the party pending the determination of the substantive suit.

The plaintiff also sought orders restraining the duo from parading themselves as national officers of the party, occupying the party’s national headquarters, and carrying out functions connected to the disputed offices.

Proceedings reviewed by the Supreme Court showed that when the ex parte application came up before the trial court on September 4, 2025, the judge declined to immediately grant the interim reliefs and instead directed that the respondents be put on notice.

According to the proceedings cited by Justice Garba, the trial court held that “the interest of justice would be met by putting the other parties on notice” to show cause why the reliefs sought should not be granted.

The matter was subsequently adjourned for hearing after service on the respondents.

An appeal was later filed challenging the orders made by the lower court, including directives that parties should maintain the “status quo ante bellum” pending determination of the dispute.

However, the Supreme Court held that the trial court neither granted nor refused an application for injunction but merely issued procedural and preservative directions.

Justice Garba ruled that Section 241(1)(f)(ii) of the 1999 Constitution, which provides for appeals as of right in matters involving injunctions, did not apply in the circumstances of the case.

Related News
Nasarawa gov aspirants collapse structure for ex-IG Adamu bid
2027: Gombe APC supporters oppose ex-minority whip’s ambition
As Tinubu tangoes with toadies
The justice held that because the appeal did not arise from an actual order granting or refusing an injunction, leave of court was required before a valid appeal could be filed.

He described the requirement for leave as a “condition precedent” to the competence of the notice of appeal.

“The competence of the notice of appeal goes to the jurisdiction of the court,” the justice held, adding that failure to obtain the necessary leave rendered the appeal incompetent.

The apex court also clarified the legal scope of “status quo ante bellum” orders, describing them as preservative measures aimed at preventing parties from taking steps capable of foisting a fait accompli on the court during pending proceedings.

Justice Garba said courts possess inherent jurisdiction to make preservative orders to protect the subject matter of litigation.

He, however, stressed that such powers are exercisable only in relation to ongoing proceedings.

According to him, once proceedings have been “fully, faithfully, conclusively and finally concluded,” there would be “nothing left for that court to preserve.”

The Supreme Court further held that sustaining the status quo ante bellum order after the relevant proceedings had ended effectively transformed the directive into an unwarranted injunction.

Justice Garba described “status quo ante bellum” as the state of affairs existing before the occurrence of the controversial event that gave rise to the dispute.

The apex court subsequently allowed the appeal and set aside the order.

It also directed that all pending processes before the lower court be determined in accordance with the law.l