Get Guardian on GoogleFormer Edo State Governor and National Legal Adviser of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Senator Oserheimen Osunbor, has faulted the judgment of the Federal High Court, Abuja, which nullified the David Mark-led caretaker leadership of the party.
He said the judgment went contrary to three existing judgments of courts of coordinate jurisdiction.
Osunbor argued that the judgment delivered by Justice Peter Lifu was legally problematic, contending that the court failed to take cognisance of previous judicial pronouncements on the leadership dispute within the opposition party.
He warned that conflicting court judgments could trigger serious political and constitutional complications, recalling the circumstances surrounding the emergence of the late General Sani Abacha as Head of State following the crisis that led to the removal of Ernest Shonekan’s Interim National Government.
The ADC legal adviser’s reaction followed Thursday’s ruling by Justice Lifu, which nullified the David Mark-led caretaker leadership and recognised Nafiu Bala Gombe’s position in the party’s leadership dispute.
The judgment has generated controversy within the opposition party, with the Mark-led National Working Committee (NWC) insisting that the decision contradicts earlier court rulings on the matter.
However, Osunbor maintained that the party’s leadership structure remained on a sound legal footing despite the latest development.
He argued that where a party was dissatisfied with an existing judgment, the appropriate legal step was to appeal against it rather than approach another judge of a court of coordinate jurisdiction to obtain a conflicting decision.
According to him, Justice Lifu ought to have considered the earlier judicial pronouncements before delivering the judgment, which he said had created further uncertainty over the party’s leadership.
Osunbor also defended the process that produced Mark as the party’s national chairman, insisting that the transition was conducted in accordance with the provisions of the ADC constitution.
He urged the party’s candidates and members not to allow the leadership dispute to distract them from their political engagements and preparations for the 2027 general elections.
The former governor also expressed concern over the broader implications of political instability, arguing that efforts should be directed towards preventing crises rather than waiting for their escalation before seeking international humanitarian intervention.
“We don’t want that. The help we want is to prevent crises from happening,” he said.
He stressed that Nigeria needed preventive diplomatic engagement and constructive interventions to avert political and security breakdowns, rather than a situation in which the international community would be compelled to deploy medical supplies, relief materials and humanitarian personnel.
Osunbor maintained that those involved in the country’s democratic process should allow the electoral system to function without interference, warning that preventing conflicts was preferable to requiring humanitarian organisations, including Doctors Without Borders, to intervene after a breakdown of law and order.
On the political implications of the judgment, he alleged that the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) was unsettled by the emergence of a formidable opposition platform and a presidential candidate capable of challenging President Bola Tinubu in the 2027 general elections.
He also questioned the timing of the legal challenge, noting that it came shortly after the ADC’s presidential campaign activities in Sokoto.
The development, he suggested, raised questions about the motives behind the legal action and its possible implications for the opposition party’s preparations for the next general elections.
Despite the controversy, Osunbor urged ADC members and candidates to remain united, concentrate on their political mobilisation and avoid distractions arising from the leadership dispute.
