₦airaland Forum

fergie001:
This case the person posted is cut-and-join.... Let me take you down memory lane; Akapo Vs Hakeem-Habeeb & Ors.

Akapo was elected Chief Ojora of Lagos to handle properties scattered all over Lagos owned by the Ojora family; The family has a Constitution (Terms of Settlement) enacted 17/12/64 that the Chief Ojora as head & other members of the Family Council (involving extended family members) are responsible for collecting all levies and rents from their many properties in Lagos,12 must form a quorum. Due to deaths, they hadn't formed a quorum for a long time hence on 22/4/84, they removed Akapo in a meeting not convened by him. The family continued as before to share rent until dissatisfied that Akapo was still benefitting, some members on 1/4/85, drove out all persons, seized the receipt books including cash in one of their properties and on 7/4/85, formed a caretaker committee (excluding Akapo) to oversee collection of all rents and levies in all their properties and published same on newspapers This committee started managing and renting out offices to persons blocking same from the Chief Ojora, Akapo.

Akapo went to the Lagos High Court, that he wanted all monies returned, injunction barring the said caretaker committee from entering or leasing any of the offices or properties belonging to the Ojoras, that he is also entitled to same as Chief Ojora. The High Court said No, he didn't suffer any damages and it will not grant the injunction because he didn't file the suit quick enough, again, the properties needed to be managed hence granting the injunction will have effect on the management, hence all monies to be collected by the caretaker committee be paid to the Lagos State Registry pending when the suit is successfully dealt with.

Akapo went to the Appeal Court and by 1-2 lost again, he approached the Supreme Court and won. The Supreme Court held that any meeting not convened by him cannot stand and granted the injunction but again in law, you look at the lead judgement. Other supporting or opposing judgements, are called orbiters, and are not quoted or used as base/foundation.
Mind you, this was an interlocutory appeal.

The lead Judgement was read by Justice Karibi-Whyte on 10/7/92. Nnaemeka Agu was just a member of a panel of 5, but I will still deal with the matter here;

Some things are instructive:
1. There was some disagreement prior to the formation of the caretaker committee.

2. There was no meeting because of the lack of quorum.

3. Any meeting must be convened by the Chief Ojora, Akapo.


status quo Vs status quo ante are both restraining orders urging parties to hold forth.

In "Mr. Kolawole Oronti Vs Alhaji S. A. Onigbanjo (2012)":
The Supreme Court, per Mary Odili JSC held "
“…Status quo ante bellum means the state of affairs existing before the case was filed.”

This is the latest Supreme Court Judgement and will hold fast and trite than the previous ones. The very slight difference is that whilst status quo talks about State of matters as it were, status quo ante is before the war.

Now to ADC.

David Mark & Aregbesola were brought in on July 2 (on interim basis). They hadn't started acting at the time despite the speeches they made, they were only pre-coronated. That they were endorsed did not mean they had taken over. They didn't carry out one administrative function on or before July 29.
There was no forceful takeover.
On Nafiu's now-deleted Facebook posts, he was backing Mark and co as far as July 11.

A NEC meeting was held by the highest ruling organ of the Party, NEC and monitored and approved by INEC on July 29 where formal handover took place. By July 31, Nafiu held a press conference that he is the Acting National Chairman. Let me pause here:-

Decisions of NEC are binding and final. So, even if Bala or any other exco had claimed not to have resigned, they have been caught up by NEC decisions. When Oshiomhole and Giadom had their fight, APC NEC dissolved the whole NWC even though some of these excos were not involved in the fight. Leadership and membership issues are within the internal affairs of a political party and the Court is divested from delving into such matters (except since 2023 for obvious reasons).

Nafiu had filed his suit on Sept 4 but as at July 29, David Mark had started his job. Before July 29, Nwosu was in-charge.

If I agree without conceding INEC and/or your position, when did the hostilities start? Before Sept 4? Before July 29?

By virtue of the latest Supreme Court Judgement on this, the suit was filed Sept 4, 25; a period David Mark was already Chairman.
INEC claims David Mark it endorsed David Mark on Sept 9, so does INEC have the rights to dabble into leadership issues? So why did Nafiu file a suit against someone whom INEC doesn't recognise according to the Commission?


To end this: The new Electoral Act 2026: Section 83(5):
“Subject to the provision of subsection (3), no Court in Nigeria shall entertain jurisdiction over any suit or matter pertaining to the internal affairs of a political party.”

Hopefully, we can follow Congresses leading to the April 14 Convention of the ADC

I would like to ask you two simple questions:
1. When did Ralph Nwosu resign as chairman ADC? Before or after July 29?

2. Can a chairman who has resigned write a letter to communicate INEC on behalf of the party? Yes or No?

No Be Juju Be Dat?

fergie001:
This cannot work.
Everyone is frantically looking for help, exactly what the ruling Party & Tinubu want.

The question is:
1. Is the July 29 NEC meeting valid?

2. Did the Court or INEC fault this same meeting?

3. Are leadership issues justicable?

So, let me ask you, they called for a NEC meeting at least 21 days before that meeting, who was Chairman?;Ralph Nwosu.
Is the NEC meeting being contested?


My advice: ADC go on with your April 14 Convention.... The fact that INEC acknowledged the Convention to go on just this Monday only to beat a volte face has made their Thursday decision a faux pas.

The same way you advised Makinde to go ahead with PDP Amala Convention in Ibadan... ; I remembered how made the same statements...That the courts had no say in the leadership crisis..and the rest as they say is History...D I hope David Mark and his gang of usurpers is not taking your advise seriously..

Tinubu is already a failure in conjunction with the compromised INEC.

Maintaining status quo ante bellum simply means INEC should recognise Ralph Nwosu and his NWC members not INEC jumping into the arena not to recognise any faction at all. Trying play smart and showing It's foolishness!
We will vote out the incompetent APC govt.

NgeneUkwenu:
The same way you advised Makinde to go ahead with PDP Amala Convention in Ibadan... ; I remembered how made the same statements...That the courts had no say in the leadership crisis..and the rest as they say is History...D I hope David Mark and his gang of usurpers is not taking your advise seriously..

That is the right thing to do.
Is there any judgement stopping these congresses from holding?

immaculatesense:
I would like to ask you two simple questions:
1. When did Ralph Nwosu resign as chairman ADC? Before or after July 29?

2. Can a chairman who has resigned write a letter to communicate INEC on behalf of the party? Yes or No?

No Be Juju Be Dat?

I wil fuse both in one.
Nwosu resigned on July 29.

fergie001:
I wil fuse both in one.
Nwosu resigned on July 29.

False.
According to data produced by Punch ng Newspaper and The Guardian ng Newspaper of July 2, 2025, Ralph Nwosu resigned on July 2, 2025, and David Mark stepped in in acting capacity and then ratified by NEC on July 29, 2025.
I have provided Punch and The Guardian as my source.

Do you have your source/evidence to back yours up?

No Be Juju Be Dat?

immaculatesense:
False.
According to data produced by Punch ng Newspaper and The Guardian ng Newspaper of July 2, 2025, Ralph Nwosu resigned on July 2, 2025, and David Mark stepped in in acting capacity and then ratified by NEC on July 29, 2025.
I have provided Punch and The Guardian as my source.

Do you have your source/evidence to back yours up?

No Be Juju Be Dat?

He announced it, did you see his resignation letter?
Who chaired the NEC of 29/7/25?
You can make announcement but there has to be ratification.
Ganduje resigned and the rumour was everywhere that his replacement will be Nentawe, until he was ratified, can you say he is Chairman?

Rivers lawmakers announced their defection to APC on live TV ... Go and hear what the Supreme Court told them. The SC asked Fubara to produce the resignation letters submitted to their parties and acceptance letters from the APC.

Any other question?

Putindbutt:
Don't mind those party hijackers and structure of criminality. They thought status quo ante bellum was when Bala Gombe went to court, but it was actually the very day hostilities began when those coalition of losers bought ADC through the back door.

They can continue to deceive their gullible supporters and turn the law upside down, their tears and wailings will not stop the law from taking its course.

Lol...

fergie001:
This case the person posted is cut-and-join.... Let me take you down memory lane; Akapo Vs Hakeem-Habeeb & Ors.

Akapo was elected Chief Ojora of Lagos to handle properties scattered all over Lagos owned by the Ojora family; The family has a Constitution (Terms of Settlement) enacted 17/12/64 that the Chief Ojora as head & other members of the Family Council (involving extended family members) are responsible for collecting all levies and rents from their many properties in Lagos,12 must form a quorum. Due to deaths, they hadn't formed a quorum for a long time hence on 22/4/84, they removed Akapo in a meeting not convened by him. The family continued as before to share rent until dissatisfied that Akapo was still benefitting, some members on 1/4/85, drove out all persons, seized the receipt books including cash in one of their properties and on 7/4/85, formed a caretaker committee (excluding Akapo) to oversee collection of all rents and levies in all their properties and published same on newspapers This committee started managing and renting out offices to persons blocking same from the Chief Ojora, Akapo.

Akapo went to the Lagos High Court, that he wanted all monies returned, injunction barring the said caretaker committee from entering or leasing any of the offices or properties belonging to the Ojoras, that he is also entitled to same as Chief Ojora. The High Court said No, he didn't suffer any damages and it will not grant the injunction because he didn't file the suit quick enough, again, the properties needed to be managed hence granting the injunction will have effect on the management, hence all monies to be collected by the caretaker committee be paid to the Lagos State Registry pending when the suit is successfully dealt with.

Akapo went to the Appeal Court and by 1-2 lost again, he approached the Supreme Court and won. The Supreme Court held that any meeting not convened by him cannot stand and granted the injunction but again in law, you look at the lead judgement. Other supporting or opposing judgements, are called orbiters, and are not quoted or used as base/foundation.
Mind you, this was an interlocutory appeal.

The lead Judgement was read by Justice Karibi-Whyte on 10/7/92. Nnaemeka Agu was just a member of a panel of 5, but I will still deal with the matter here;

Some things are instructive:
1. There was some disagreement prior to the formation of the caretaker committee.

2. There was no meeting because of the lack of quorum.

3. Any meeting must be convened by the Chief Ojora, Akapo.


status quo Vs status quo ante are both restraining orders urging parties to hold forth.

In "Mr. Kolawole Oronti Vs Alhaji S. A. Onigbanjo (2012)":
The Supreme Court, per Mary Odili JSC held "
“…Status quo ante bellum means the state of affairs existing before the case was filed.”

This is the latest Supreme Court Judgement and will hold fast and trite than the previous ones. The very slight difference is that whilst status quo talks about State of matters as it were, status quo ante is before the war.

Now to ADC.

David Mark & Aregbesola were brought in on July 2 (on interim basis). They hadn't started acting at the time despite the speeches they made, they were only pre-coronated. That they were endorsed did not mean they had taken over. They didn't carry out one administrative function on or before July 29.
There was no forceful takeover.
On Nafiu's now-deleted Facebook posts, he was backing Mark and co as far as July 11.

A NEC meeting was held by the highest ruling organ of the Party, NEC and monitored and approved by INEC on July 29 where formal handover took place. By July 31, Nafiu held a press conference that he is the Acting National Chairman. Let me pause here:-

Decisions of NEC are binding and final. So, even if Bala or any other exco had claimed not to have resigned, they have been caught up by NEC decisions. When Oshiomhole and Giadom had their fight, APC NEC dissolved the whole NWC even though some of these excos were not involved in the fight. Leadership and membership issues are within the internal affairs of a political party and the Court is divested from delving into such matters (except since 2023 for obvious reasons).

Nafiu had filed his suit on Sept 4 but as at July 29, David Mark had started his job. Before July 29, Nwosu was in-charge.

If I agree without conceding INEC and/or your position, when did the hostilities start? Before Sept 4? Before July 29?

By virtue of the latest Supreme Court Judgement on this, the suit was filed Sept 4, 25; a period David Mark was already Chairman.
INEC claims David Mark it endorsed David Mark on Sept 9, so does INEC have the rights to dabble into leadership issues? So why did Nafiu file a suit against someone whom INEC doesn't recognise according to the Commission?


To end this: The new Electoral Act 2026: Section 83(5):
“Subject to the provision of subsection (3), no Court in Nigeria shall entertain jurisdiction over any suit or matter pertaining to the internal affairs of a political party.”

Hopefully, we can follow Congresses leading to the April 14 Convention of the ADC

Interesting read!

fergie001:
He announced it, did you see his resignation letter?
Who chaired the NEC of 29/7/25?
You can make announcement but there has to be ratification.
Ganduje resigned and the rumour was everywhere that his replacement will be Nentawe, until he was ratified, can you say he is Chairman?

Rivers lawmakers announced their defection to APC on live TV ... Go and hear what the Supreme Court told them. The SC asked Fubara to produce the resignation letters submitted to their parties and acceptance letters from the APC.

Any other question?

You don't get it. You should be wiser than this narrow comparison of yours.

Firstly, the Rivers assembly is an unrelated issue because nobody took their place simultaneously.

Secondly, when Ganduje resigned, he ceased to be playing the role of the chairman nor was he sending letters to INEC on behalf of the APC. Nentawe took over immediately in acting capacity and held a NEC meeting. Ganduje did not hold a NEC meeting after his resignation.

Ralph Nwosu on the other hand said he resigned on July 2 and on the July second David Mark took over in acting capacity. The question is, " On what ground did Ralph Nwosu write a letter the commission on July 29 when we have an acting chairman as at July 2."

On "status quo" and " status quo antebellum" you analysis was totally wrong.

If the court had declared a "status quo" be maintained, David Mark should maintain the chairman pending the verdict of the court, but the court declared a "status quo antebellum" meaning Ralph Nwosu should remain the chairman but since he had resigned (that is not in question), his deputy Bala Gombe should be chairman pending the verdict of the court on the matter. That is the interpretation of the "... antebellum".
INEC should have recognized Bala, but INEC did the write thing because they have received the purported resignation letter quoting that Bala had resigned (although it is being questioned).

INEC decision is the best decision judging the antebellum and the purported resignation.

No Be Juju Be Dat?

immaculatesense:
You don't get it. You should be wiser than this narrow comparison of yours.

Firstly, the Rivers assembly is an unrelated issue because nobody took their place simultaneously.

Secondly, when Ganduje resigned, he ceased to be playing the role of the chairman nor was he sending letters to INEC on behalf of the APC. Nentawe took over immediately in acting capacity and held a NEC meeting. Ganduje did not hold a NEC meeting after his resignation.

Ralph Nwosu on the other hand said he resigned on July 2 and on the July second David Mark took over in acting capacity. The question is, " On what ground did Ralph Nwosu write a letter the commission on July 29 when we have an acting chairman as at July 2."

On "status quo" and " status quo antebellum" you analysis was totally wrong.

If the court had declared a "status quo" be maintained, David Mark should maintain the chairman pending the verdict of the court, but the court declared a "status quo antebellum" meaning Ralph Nwosu should remain the chairman but since he had resigned (that is not in question), his deputy Bala Gombe should be chairman pending the verdict of the court on the matter. That is the interpretation of the "... antebellum".
INEC should have recognized Bala, but INEC did the write thing because they have received the purported resignation letter quoting that Bala had resigned (although it is being questioned).

INEC decision is the best decision judging the antebellum and the purported resignation.

No Be Juju Be Dat?

I know where you are headed, insults ....but I will oblige you.

1. What is the highest ruling organ of any political Party?

2. Who wrote to INEC for the NEC meeting?.

3.;Did Mark carry out any administrative function from July 2-29?

4. Did you see Ralph Nwosu's resignation letter?

5. The Constitution is clear, if you defect without a crisis in your Party, you forfeit your seat. For Rivers, it wasn't a position of replacement but forfeiture.
So I ask again, did you see the resignation letters of the Rivers lawmakers other than what they read on National TV?

6. Are you aware Nafiu had been expelled by his Party?.

7. Ganduje submitted his resignation letter to the NEC, who did Nwosu submit how own to, before July 2.
If he resigned, why was INEC there and accorded him all paraphernalia of office?

Answering number one will help me know whether I will proceed with this exposition or not!
.
.....With thanks
.

Immaculatesense. ..

You said Nwosu resigned July 2, so who was the Chairman then?

Look at this Facebook page, the ones Nafiu managed not to delete.
So when did he become National Chairman?

He was Deputy as at 20/7/25
But Nwosu resigned July 2, 2025.

Make do with that however

Lithiumite:
But same court upheld elections in states won by opposition, apc lost zamfara and rivers to the courts without even casting a single vote despite being the party in power......I guess courts weren't useless then.

You're talking of Buhari right?

Buhari that even his family members were losing elections?

Well, Like you guys always boast, Tinubu is not Buhari...

Tinubu would never lose that way..

Besides these judges know what they do,, they are not fools.

They give opposition one favourable judgement and give 20 unfavorable ones.

They are not fools,,, they know how well to cover their tracks.

fergie001:
I know where you are headed, insults ....but I will oblige you.

1. What is the highest ruling organ of any political Party?

2. Who wrote to INEC for the NEC meeting?.

3.;Did Mark carry out any administrative function from July 2-29?

4. Did you see Ralph Nwosu's resignation letter?

5. The Constitution is clear, if you defect without a crisis in your Party, you forfeit your seat. For Rivers, it wasn't a position of replacement but forfeiture.
So I ask again, did you see the resignation letters of the Rivers lawmakers other than what they read on National TV?

6. Are you aware Nafiu had been expelled by his Party?.

7. Ganduje submitted his resignation letter to the NEC, who did Nwosu submit how own to, before July 2.
If he resigned, why was INEC there and accorded him all paraphernalia of office?

Answering number one will help me know whether I will proceed with this exposition or not!
.
.....With thanks
.

Go follow my trajectory, I don't insult.
Let me answer your questions one after the other as I put mine below.
1. The National Convention is the highest making organ of the party.
Q. Who makes up the NEC of the party? And how do you legally resolve an NWC of a party whose tenure has not elapsed without litigation? Did the David Mark leadership do that legitimately?

2. Ralph Nwosu.
Q. Does a chairman who has resigned have the locus to write to the electoral body on behalf of the party? If you claim he didn't resign at the time, why did he say they did or why should we accept that Bala actually resigned.

3. No.
Q. Why didn't they?

4. No.
Q. Why did he keep it secret if there is nothing fishy about the whole charade? When did he resign? When did Bala resign? Before or after July 29?

5. Yes, you lose your sit.
Q. Who has the power to declare a sit vacant in the legislative house? Is that a lacuna in our constitution? What is the supreme court verdict? Do you fault the verdict?

6. Not substantiated.
Q. Which leadership expelled him? David Mark or Nwosu? Does David Mark leadership have the locus to suspend a sitting National Deputy Chairman?

7. INEC always take their time before changing names on their portal. Julius Abure was on the portal for the longest of time even after a court order/judgment.
Q. What is the interpretation of the Court of Appeal order, and how should INEC have interpreted it (since the court do not interpret its own judgments)?


No Be Juju Be Dat?

fergie001:
Immaculatesense. ..

You said Nwosu resigned July 2, so who was the Chairman then?

Look at this Facebook page, the ones Nafiu managed not to delete.
So when did he become National Chairman?

He was Deputy as at 20/7/25
But Nwosu resigned July 2, 2025.

Make do with that however

He never claimed to have resigned (it's you people that claim he has).
He has never accepted that David Mark is the National Chairman of the party.

Why did Nwosu said "we have resigned to pave way for the leadership of David Mark and Aregbeshola who will steer the party to success" - Ralph Nwosu (2 July, 2025) Punch Newspaper/ Guardian Newspaper.

Answer the question.

No Be Juju Be Dat?

immaculatesense:
He never claimed to have resigned (it's you people that claim he has).
He has never accepted that David Mark is the National Chairman of the party.

Why did Nwosu said "we have resigned to pave way for the leadership of David Mark and Aregbeshola who will steer the party to success" - Ralph Nwosu (2 July, 2025) Punch Newspaper/ Guardian Newspaper.

Answer the question.

No Be Juju Be Dat?

But he was Deputy National Chairman on 20/7/25!

fergie001:
But he was Deputy National Chairman on 20/7/25!

But Nwosu claimed that have all resigned as at 2 July, 2026.
Did Nwosu lied?
What date does the purported resignation letter of Bala Gombe carry?

Can you answer these two questions and I will know whether you understand law or you are just capping.

No Be Juju Be Dat?

immaculatesense:
Go follow my trajectory, I don't insult.
Let me answer your questions one after the other as I put mine below.
1. The National Convention is the highest making organ of the party.

Q. Who makes up the NEC of the party? And how do you legally resolve an NWC of a party whose tenure has not elapsed without litigation? Did the David Mark leadership do that legitimately?[/quote]Good.
However, the day-to-day running of the Party is invested in the National Executive Committee. The NEC's decision is final in all affairs excepting the National Convention. This NEC gives its powers to the NWC led by Nwosu as at 2025.

Ans:; Every Party has persons who should make up her NEC. But there is one common denominator, the Chairman calls for and chairs NEC meetings and the Secretary is responsible for correspondence.
Whether the tenure of NWC is up or not, the NEC supercedes the NWC.
The PDP has never had a Chair that has completed their tenure, same as APC except Oyegun.
PDP NEC removed Okwesilieze Nwodo, Bamanga Tukur, others whilst their tenures were subsisting. The PDP Convention also removed Ali Modu Sheriff without hesitancy.
The APC vide a NEC meeting removed Oshiomhole even when Giadom/Ajimobi were still fighting who will be in-charge. No resignation, nothing. A meeting was called by Buhari as National leader and that was all.

So, the NEC and the Convention can at any time terminate tenures, no matter who. These issues dwell within the internal affairs of a political party and the Courts don't touch it.

2. Ralph Nwosu.
Q. Does a chairman who has resigned have the locus to write to the electoral body on behalf of the party? If you claim he didn't resign at the time, why did he say they did or why should we accept that Bala actually resigned.

The Chairman said Bala resigned, all the NWC resigned. Bala said nothing from July 2-31. He kept on attending meetings with them as seen on that Facebook post. Removal or Election of Officers of the Party must be ratified at NEC meetings.

3. No.
Q. Why didn't they?

Because they didn't have the powers to do so. They were not ratified by NEC.

4. No.
Q. Why did he keep it secret if there is nothing fishy about the whole charade? When did he resign? When did Bala resign? Before or after July 29?

Politicians do that for horse-trading. If whatever they planned didn't go well, he will still have held on because NEC didn't ratify until July 29.
That is why the Rivers lawmakers held tightly to their resignation letters despite announcing on air. Just last year, Osun Gov resigned with his letter saying he left weeks ago whilst he was still attending PDP activities.

5. Yes, you lose your sit.
Q. Who has the power to declare a sit vacant in the legislative house? Is that a lacuna in our constitution? What is the supreme court verdict? Do you fault the verdict?

Yes, it is a lacuna however in Abegunde Vs LP, the SC said automatically loses his seat. Before now, Courts have sacked whomever defects. I totally fault the verdict but the Apex Court has spoken, that is today's law.

6. Not substantiated.
Q. Which leadership expelled him? David Mark or Nwosu? Does David Mark leadership have the locus to suspend a sitting National Deputy Chairman?

None of them suspended him, his Ward expelled him, it went to his LG and then to the State. It was announced by the duly-recognised State Chairman in Gombe (you can verify)

7. INEC always take their time before changing names on their portal. Julius Abure was on the portal for the longest of time even after a court order/judgment.
Q. What is the interpretation of the Court of Appeal order, and how should INEC have interpreted it (since the court do not interpret its own judgments)?

Again, every NWC EXCO including the National Fair submits resignation to the NWC.

I will explain so you make the decision.

Nafiu went to Federal High Court applying for an ex-parte (Ex-parte are orders given on the spot without the Judge hearing from the other side). In his olea, he said he is the rightful National Chairman and the Court should order INEC to start dealing with him and not Mark. He filed this suit on 2/9/25. The Judge refused and asked him to serve Mark and others for them to show cause why Nafiu shouldn't be recognised Chairman.

Mark's argument;.
1. You have refused his ex-parte, dismiss the case because there is no merit, no jurisdiction. Court says no, file your case. Mind you, this is an interlocutory appeal, not the final judgement.

Mark appeals;
March 12, Court of Appeal says no. ..the Court has not heard the case.
It only dismissed the ex-parte
You were hasty
We cannot treat a matter that didn't come from the lower court.
Go and continue the case, status quo ante.

(It's long enough) https://www.nairaland.com/8646824/definition-status-quo-ante-bellum#138979543 (that is the fulcrum)[/quote]

fergie001:
This case the person posted is cut-and-join.... Let me take you down memory lane; Akapo Vs Hakeem-Habeeb & Ors.

Akapo was elected Chief Ojora of Lagos to handle properties scattered all over Lagos owned by the Ojora family; The family has a Constitution (Terms of Settlement) enacted 17/12/64 that the Chief Ojora as head & other members of the Family Council (involving extended family members) are responsible for collecting all levies and rents from their many properties in Lagos,12 must form a quorum. Due to deaths, they hadn't formed a quorum for a long time hence on 22/4/84, they removed Akapo in a meeting not convened by him. The family continued as before to share rent until dissatisfied that Akapo was still benefitting, some members on 1/4/85, drove out all persons, seized the receipt books including cash in one of their properties and on 7/4/85, formed a caretaker committee (excluding Akapo) to oversee collection of all rents and levies in all their properties and published same on newspapers This committee started managing and renting out offices to persons blocking same from the Chief Ojora, Akapo.

Akapo went to the Lagos High Court, that he wanted all monies returned, injunction barring the said caretaker committee from entering or leasing any of the offices or properties belonging to the Ojoras, that he is also entitled to same as Chief Ojora. The High Court said No, he didn't suffer any damages and it will not grant the injunction because he didn't file the suit quick enough, again, the properties needed to be managed hence granting the injunction will have effect on the management, hence all monies to be collected by the caretaker committee be paid to the Lagos State Registry pending when the suit is successfully dealt with.

Akapo went to the Appeal Court and by 1-2 lost again, he approached the Supreme Court and won. The Supreme Court held that any meeting not convened by him cannot stand and granted the injunction but again in law, you look at the lead judgement. Other supporting or opposing judgements, are called orbiters, and are not quoted or used as base/foundation.
Mind you, this was an interlocutory appeal.

The lead Judgement was read by Justice Karibi-Whyte on 10/7/92. Nnaemeka Agu was just a member of a panel of 5, but I will still deal with the matter here;

Some things are instructive:
1. There was some disagreement prior to the formation of the caretaker committee.

2. There was no meeting because of the lack of quorum.

3. Any meeting must be convened by the Chief Ojora, Akapo.


status quo Vs status quo ante are both restraining orders urging parties to hold forth.

In "Mr. Kolawole Oronti Vs Alhaji S. A. Onigbanjo (2012)":
The Supreme Court, per Mary Odili JSC held "
“…Status quo ante bellum means the state of affairs existing before the case was filed.”

This is the latest Supreme Court Judgement and will hold fast and trite than the previous ones. The very slight difference is that whilst status quo talks about State of matters as it were, status quo ante is before the war.

Now to ADC.

David Mark & Aregbesola were brought in on July 2 (on interim basis). They hadn't started acting at the time despite the speeches they made, they were only pre-coronated. That they were endorsed did not mean they had taken over. They didn't carry out one administrative function on or before July 29.
There was no forceful takeover.
On Nafiu's now-deleted Facebook posts, he was backing Mark and co as far as July 11.

A NEC meeting was held by the highest ruling organ of the Party, NEC and monitored and approved by INEC on July 29 where formal handover took place. By July 31, Nafiu held a press conference that he is the Acting National Chairman. Let me pause here:-

Decisions of NEC are binding and final. So, even if Bala or any other exco had claimed not to have resigned, they have been caught up by NEC decisions. When Oshiomhole and Giadom had their fight, APC NEC dissolved the whole NWC even though some of these excos were not involved in the fight. Leadership and membership issues are within the internal affairs of a political party and the Court is divested from delving into such matters (except since 2023 for obvious reasons).

Nafiu had filed his suit on Sept 4 but as at July 29, David Mark had started his job. Before July 29, Nwosu was in-charge.

If I agree without conceding INEC and/or your position, when did the hostilities start? Before Sept 4? Before July 29?

By virtue of the latest Supreme Court Judgement on this, the suit was filed Sept 4, 25; a period David Mark was already Chairman.
INEC claims David Mark it endorsed David Mark on Sept 9, so does INEC have the rights to dabble into leadership issues? So why did Nafiu file a suit against someone whom INEC doesn't recognise according to the Commission?


To end this: The new Electoral Act 2026: Section 83(5):
“Subject to the provision of subsection (3), no Court in Nigeria shall entertain jurisdiction over any suit or matter pertaining to the internal affairs of a political party.”

Hopefully, we can follow Congresses leading to the April 14 Convention of the ADC

I have faulted this your explanation of "status quo antebellum."
The interpretation is to return to the base before the war.
They question is when?
The answer is, before David Mark leadership.

Consequence is that Ralph Nwosu's leadership.

Sideline is that Nwosu has resigned and the National Deputy Chairman should assume chairmanship

The quagmire is that the National Deputy Chairman has purportedly resigned is position along with the whole working committee.

Effect is that the ADC currently do not have a structure has a base for the "... antebellum" therefore INEC left the vacuum. Simple as ABC.

What can save David Mark NWC is for them to prove that Bala actually resigned. Failure to do so is an Anyanwu PDP case Season 2 because he will be declared the Substantive National Chairman.

No Be Juju Be Dat?

fergie001:
The INEC Chair is labouring so much too hard.

Decision of the Court of Appel - March 12, 26
Acknowledgment by INEC of Adc Convention to proceed on 14/4)26 - 30 March 26

Derecognition of Mark & co - April 2, 26
NEC meeting that produced Mark - July 29, 25
Resignation of Okey Nwosu - July 29, 25

Bala Gombe's Facebook post (as deleted) - he refers to himself as Deputy National Chairman as at July 11, 2025.

peaceful nature until July 31, 2025 when Bala announced himself.
Nafiu Bala expelled by the State Chapter of the Party - August 21, 25

Describe status quo ante again?

What is Nafiu's argument?
That Nwosu resigned on July 29, Ina NEC meeting where he wasn't present?

The Appeal Court said: Go back to the FHC and conclude same. At the FHC, what was the issue...the Appeal Court cannot give an order that has not emanated from the lower court

You’re focusing on resignation, but that’s not even what the court order is centered on.

If you look at the Federal High Court order by Emeka Nwite, the reliefs are about restraining INEC from recognizing Mark and Aregbesola and stopping them from parading themselves as party leadership. The court didn’t make any finding on resignation at that stage; it only refused the ex parte application and asked parties to come and show cause.

So the actual issue before the court is recognition of leadership, not just whether someone resigned.

Now the Court of Appeal comes in and says maintain status quo and don’t foist a fait accompli. That means nothing should be done to strengthen or entrench either side while the case is still pending.

So ask yourself — what is being challenged?
INEC’s recognition of the Mark-led leadership.

That means the recognition itself cannot be treated as the status quo, because that is exactly what the court is being asked to decide.

The logical status quo is the position before that recognition happened.

That’s why INEC removing all the names makes sense coz they’re stepping back completely so they don’t tilt the case in favor of either side.

You can’t define status quo using the very action that is under challenge in court.

AMINDA:
Oga, tell Tinubu to prepare for elections and face his opponents at the polls. His fear is palpable and it's beginning to demoralise APC supporters. Nigeria is not Lagos and will never be. There are no Kings. State of ante whatever by your definition will entail Ralph Nwosu coming back to assume chairmanship of the party despite properly resigning, not so? Tinubu has no pathway to re-election and he knows it.

Tell your fraudulent people to settle their internal issues and stop accusing another party or disturb us with thier useless internal affairs.

ddippset:
Yes but you have not told us how can someone who also resigned take over?

The guy is in court, saying he did not resign but they forged his signature. What else do you want to eat?

Abbeytoy:
The guy is in court, saying he did not resign but they forged his signature. What else do you want to eat?

Is that the reasin why Amupitan and Tinubu cannot interprete status quo ante bellum?

fergie001:
It doesn't make INEC a Judge and Jury.

In 2007, INEC and its legal team made a decision like this following an Appeal Court Judgement. The Supreme Court sitting in a panel of 7 shut it down immediately. See Atiku Vs INEC.

Just recently, INEC also made a decision in Natasha Akpoti Vs INEC , when she ran for Governor under SDP, the Appeal Court also shut it down.

INEC totally misinterpreted and misrepresented the Appeal Court Judgement. Again, what was before the Appeal Court.

Nafiu complained that he is the Ag National Chairman.
At the time he filed the suit in Sept 4, INEC had not recognised David Mark.
Note this.

Yes, anyone can misinterpret judgement but do you think that the judgement gave a go-ahead order to Mark's leadership and how?

LegendHero:
You’re focusing on resignation, but that’s not even what the court order is centered on.

If you look at the Federal High Court order by Emeka Nwite, the reliefs are about restraining INEC from recognizing Mark and Aregbesola and stopping them from parading themselves as party leadership. The court didn’t make any finding on resignation at that stage; it only refused the ex parte application and asked parties to come and show cause.

So the actual issue before the court is recognition of leadership, not just whether someone resigned.

I only brought up the resignation based on enquiries. I am not interested in it, I am more into the internal party situation and whether the Courts have rights in intraparty affairs.
Now, the leadership question.

Now the Court of Appeal comes in and says maintain status quo and don’t foist a fait accompli. That means nothing should be done to strengthen or entrench either side while the case is still pending.

So ask yourself — what is being challenged?
INEC’s recognition of the Mark-led leadership.

That means the recognition itself cannot be treated as the status quo, because that is exactly what the court is being asked to decide.

The logical status quo is the position before that recognition happened.

That’s why INEC removing all the names makes sense coz they’re stepping back completely so they don’t tilt the case in favor of either side.

You can’t define status quo using the very action that is under challenge in court.

The ex-parte was refused.
So the Court said you guys come to show why Nafiu shouldn't be Chairman.

Do not forget that by September 4, INEC had not recognized David Mark and co. They were recognized on 9th September, so who was Bala challenging, Mark, who at the time was not recognized by INEC.

Did the order tell INEC to delist Mark?
Did the order tell INEC to strip ADC of leadership?
Did the order tell INEC to remove Mark from the portal?

It was not INEC's job to interprete, no judgement was given thereto. When did hostilities begin?
Nafiu as at July 20, was still celebrating David Mark on his Facebook page.
He only complained and said mi o nigba on July 31. After NEC meeting?
These are the points.

Peacecore:
Yes, anyone can misinterpret judgement but do you think that the judgement gave a go-ahead order to Mark's leadership and how?

The judgement didn't tell INEC to delist Mark?
It didn't tell INEC to foist them with no leadership.
It didn't tell INEC to remove them from the portal!

INEC on the safe side, could simply have called them and said they should go to the Courts for interpretation. They have taken a side with their interpretation.

fergie001:
The judgement didn't tell INEC to delist Mark?
It didn't tell INEC to foist them with no leadership.
It didn't tell INEC to remove them from the portal!

INEC on the safe side, could simply have called them and said they should go to the Courts for interpretation. They have taken a side with their interpretation.

Good that you are aware of @bolded but I blame INEC initially for recognising them out of maybe emotion or sentiment but come to think of it; don't you believe that INEC tried to right their wrong? I don't think INEC actually took side because the two factions are not recognised as the court ordered.

fergie001:
I only brought up the resignation based on enquiries. I am not interested in it, I am more into the internal party situation and whether the Courts have rights in intraparty affairs.
Now, the leadership question.

The ex-parte was refused.
So the Court said you guys come to show why Nafiu shouldn't be Chairman.

Do not forget that by September 4, INEC had not recognized David Mark and co. They were recognized on 9th September, so who was Bala challenging, Mark, who at the time was not recognized by INEC.

Did the order tell INEC to delist Mark?
Did the order tell INEC to strip ADC of leadership?
Did the order tell INEC to remove Mark from the portal?

It was not INEC's job to interprete, no judgement was given thereto. When did hostilities begin?
Nafiu as at July 20, was still celebrating David Mark on his Facebook page.
He only complained and said mi o nigba on July 31. After NEC meeting?
These are the points.

You’re mixing a few things up.

Yes, the ex parte was refused, but that doesn’t mean the court approved anything. It just means no interim order was granted and the case is still to be decided.
Also, the court didn’t say “show why Nafiu shouldn’t be chairman.” The issue before the court is whether INEC should recognize the Mark-led leadership.

On INEC, you’re right, the order didn’t tell them to delist anyone. But once leadership recognition is being challenged and the Appeal Court says maintain status quo, INEC can’t act in a way that favors either side.
Keeping Mark on the portal looks like endorsement.
Restoring the old leadership also looks like endorsement.

So removing all names is just neutrality pending the court’s decision.

As for Facebook posts, that’s not a legal argument. What matters is whether the process that produced the leadership was valid.

Lastly, We will all know whatsup before month ending so all this back and forth is not worth it. Let’s see how it goes.

Peacecore:
Good that you are aware of @bolded but I blame INEC initially for recognising them out of maybe emotion or sentiment but come to think of it; don't you believe that INEC tried to right their wrong? I don't think INEC actually took side because the two factions are not recognised as the court ordered.

INEC walked them through that process for 18 months.
INEC was present at the NEC meeting that produced them.
INEC was bound to do that.

This is why I think INEC hurriedly delisted Mark. This judgement was 12/3/25. ADC forwarded to INEC details of their Convention on 31/3/26, INEC acknowledged. INEC delisted Mark on 2/4/26.

If Amupitan wanted to play safe, delisting Mark had defeated that purpose. This singular act is my crux with him!
With PDP, he called a meeting between Anyanwu and Turaki after Court orders to tell them to fashion out a path. The truth was that the Convention startled the powers-that,-be. The Nafiu guy was expelled in August by his Ward.

LegendHero:
Yes, the ex parte was refused, but that doesn’t mean the court approved anything. It just means no interim order was granted and the case is still to be decided.

correct

Also, the court didn’t say “show why Nafiu shouldn’t be chairman.” The issue before the court is whether INEC should recognize the Mark-led leadership.

Not correct.
The issue before the Court is I, Nafiu is the ADC National Chairman. INEC shouldn't recognize any other 'imposter'. I

On INEC, you’re right, the order didn’t tell them to delist anyone. But once leadership recognition is being challenged and the Appeal Court says maintain status quo, INEC can’t act in a way that favors either side.
Keeping Mark on the portal looks like endorsement.
Restoring the old leadership also looks like endorsement.
So removing all names is just neutrality pending the court’s decision.

They could have made their statement with Mark on the portal.
When a Court wants to remove someone's name, it boldly says delist or remove.

Touching their names already without the input of the Court is already judicial overreach.

This singular act is where the problem emanates. The Court will never envisage there is no leadership because these are intraparty issues.

As for Facebook posts, that’s not a legal argument. What matters is whether the process that produced the leadership was valid.

Issues of leadership and membership are intra-party issues, the court is not inquisitorial but dwells on jurisdiction.

Lastly, We will all know whatsup before month ending so all this back and forth is not worth it. Let’s see how it goes.

Primary starts April 23.

Don't forget, you will give INEC 21 days before Primary which ends May 30....now you see the danger.

fergie001:
INEC walked them through that process for 18 months.
INEC was present at the NEC meeting that produced them.
INEC was bound to do that.

This is why I think INEC hurriedly delisted Mark. This judgement was 12/3/25. ADC forwarded to INEC details of their Convention on 31/3/26, INEC acknowledged. INEC delisted Mark on 2/4/26.

If Amupitan wanted to play safe, delisting Mark had defeated that purpose. This singular act is my crux with him!
With PDP, he called a meeting between Anyanwu and Turaki after Court orders to tell them to fashion out a path. The truth was that the Convention startled the powers-that,-be. The Nafiu guy was expelled in August by his Ward.

INEC erred from the beginning for sure and their action now to look clean is now looking bias because of timing. I think their legal team didn't do their work meticulously initially. But come to think of it; don't you think this action of INEC is for the good of ADC to avoid Zamfara APC situation? If INEC didn't do this, they would've come back to blame INEC of deceiving them when court strikes.

Peacecore:
INEC erred from the beginning for sure and their action now to look clean is now looking bias because of timing. I think their legal team didn't do their work meticulously initially. But come to think of it; don't you think this action of INEC is for the good of ADC to avoid Zamfara APC situation? If INEC didn't do this, they would've come back to blame INEC of deceiving them when court strikes.

The timing was everything.
3 weeks after the judgement.... Less than 10 days to a Convention!
They didn't cover themselves in good light!