Explainer: What Supreme Court ruling means for ADC, INEC deadline

The recent Supreme Court ruling restoring the leadership of David Mark as National Chairman of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) may appear like a decisive victory for the opposition party, but a closer look shows the crisis is far from resolved.

While the apex court set aside the order of the Court of Appeal that had directed parties to maintain the status quo ante bellum, it stopped short of delivering a final verdict on the underlying leadership dispute.

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision by a five-member panel led by Justice Mohammed Lawal Garba, ruled that the Court of Appeal acted beyond its jurisdiction by issuing orders after dismissing the appeal before it.

However, the court only allowed part of Mark’s appeal and directed all parties to return to the trial court for continuation of hearing. This means the substantive issue—who legitimately leads the ADC—remains unresolved.

In effect, the restoration of the 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 ongoing litigation creates uncertainty around decisions taken by the current leadership, especially if the trial court eventually rules otherwise.

This lingering legal tussle weakens the party’s internal cohesion at a critical political moment.

INEC deadline Pressure

More pressing is the ticking clock. The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has set May 10 as the deadline for political parties to submit their membership registers ahead of the 2027 general elections.

With barely days to meet this requirement, the ADC faces a logistical and legal challenge. Any dispute over the legitimacy of the party’s leadership could complicate the submission process or even raise questions about the authenticity of the register presented.

If factions fail to align quickly, there is a risk of parallel submissions or internal disputes over which list represents the authentic membership of the party. Such confusion could attract regulatory scrutiny or even sanctions from INEC.

Although the Supreme Court ruling strengthens the position of the Mark-led leadership for now, it is, at best, an interim relief rather than a conclusive win.

Until the trial court delivers a final judgment and the party resolves its internal divisions, the ADC remains in a precarious position—caught between legal uncertainty and electoral deadlines.

In practical terms, the party may have won a battle, but the larger war over its leadership and organisational stability is still ongoing.