The Obidient Movement is apparently considering an alternative from the African Democratic Congress (ADC), following Thursday’s Supreme Court judgment concerning the crisis rocking the party.

Thursday’s verdict ordered the leadership crisis to be addressed by the Federal High Court, which had issued a Status quo Ante bellum.

Before the verdict, the Interim National Coordinator Obidient Movement Worldwide, Yunusa Tanko, had predicted that the Supreme Court would direct the matter back to the Federal High Court.

He said on X, “They plan to deliver judgment on the 5th of May. Depending on the outcome, they may direct the matter back to the High Court. The opposition will then have only three working days (6th, 7th, and 8th) to take a decision, with the 9th and 10th falling on the weekend and marking the deadline for submission to INEC.”

He described the move as an orchestration by anti-democratic and centrifugal forces against former presidential candidate Peter Obi.

Following the judgment, the leader of the Edo State Obidient Movement, Asemota Igiogbe, predicted a coming turbulence fashioned by court verdicts.

He advised that any serious presidential aspirant must attach to a newer, cleaner party to secure a clear ticket, and build momentum before the turbulence hits, not after courts have turned the party into a constitutional and succession‑battlefield.

Igiogbe described the Supreme Court’s ruling as a “banana peel” because it allows the Federal High Court to probe the merits of ADC leadership, which revives the very domestic‑politics litigation it had previously tried to shut out. He said it creates a legal slippery‑slope: like a banana peel on the floor. “It looks like it clears the path but may actually cause future political and judicial trips,” he said.

He recalled that the Supreme Court had previously held that courts should not routinely decide party‑leadership contests, echoing the position that such matters are *internal to the party and not subject to ordinary judicial determination.*

“The Labour Party leadership case around the expiry of Abure’s tenure as national chairman similarly highlighted that once a national‑chairman’s constitution‑based tenure ends, the party must re‑elect or choose a new leader, and courts must generally avoid creating ‘judicial chairmen’ which INEC in their portal refer to as CHAIRMAN *BY COURT ORDER.*

“The ADC is now a political cul‑de‑sac, and any serious presidential aspirant must attach to a newer, cleaner party, (who would have done their congresses & convention perhaps) secure a clear ticket, and build momentum before the turbulence hits—not after courts have turned the party into a constitutional and succession‑battlefield,” he said.