The 2023 presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, Dumebi Kachikwu, on Thursday maintained that the Supreme Court did not recognise or endorse any faction in the lingering leadership crisis rocking the party.
Kachikwu made the clarification in a statement made available to journalists in the wake of the apex court’s verdict.
The ADC chieftain stressed that the decision to return parties to the trial court showed that the judiciary refused to be drawn into what he described as attempts to destabilise the party.
He explained that by vacating the order of status quo ante bellum, the court merely allowed the factions to continue their claims pending a final determination by the lower court.
He said, “Today, the Supreme Court of Nigeria displayed King Solomon’s wisdom in refusing to be used as a tool of destabilisation by the David Mark-led group when it directed both factions to return to the trial court for continuation of the trial.
“In vacating the order of status quo ante bellum, all the Supreme Court has said is that they are not stopping any of the factions from calling themselves any name they choose to call themselves, but they should allow the lower court to determine if any of the two factions is the rightful leadership of the ADC.”
Kachikwu likened the situation to “two thieves claiming ownership of a stolen car,” insisting that neither faction had a legitimate claim to the party’s leadership.
“This case is akin to two thieves claiming ownership of a stolen car, but they have been told to take their proof of ownership before a court to determine if either of them is indeed the owner of the car.
“In the case of Nafiu Bala and the David Mark band of adventurers, we know that neither of the two parties has a rightful claim to the leadership of the party. It is important to note that the Supreme Court has not directed INEC to recognise the David Mark-led group,” he said.
The ADC chieftain also drew attention to a recent Federal High Court ruling by Joyce Abdulmalik in a related suit filed by the party’s state chairmen.
According to him, the rulings implied that neither faction could validly lay claim to the party structure.
“This essentially means these men have stolen a car without an engine and can therefore go nowhere. Again, I say buyer beware, the ADC is not for sale,” he added.
The Supreme Court had earlier set aside a controversial “status quo ante bellum” order issued during proceedings in the ADC leadership dispute, holding that such preservative directives cannot subsist once a matter has been effectively concluded.
In the lead judgment, Mohammed Garba ruled that while courts possess inherent powers to issue preservative orders, such powers apply only where there is an ongoing subject matter to protect.
He held that once proceedings have been “fully, faithfully, conclusively and finally concluded,” there is “nothing left” to preserve, rendering the continuation of such orders invalid.
The court also found that the appeal challenging the lower court’s directives was incompetent, as it did not arise from a decision granting or refusing an injunction.
It stressed that obtaining leave of court in such circumstances is a “condition precedent,” and failure to do so affects the jurisdiction of the court.
