The Obidient Movement is reportedly considering alternatives to the African Democratic Congress (ADC) following the Supreme Court's judgment on the party's leadership crisis. The ruling, delivered on Thursday, ordered the Federal High Court to address the crisis, maintaining a status quo ante bellum.
Pre-Judgment Predictions
Prior to the verdict, Yunusa Tanko, Interim National Coordinator of the Obidient Movement Worldwide, had anticipated that the Supreme Court would refer the matter back to the Federal High Court. He stated 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 characterized this as an orchestrated effort by anti-democratic forces against former presidential candidate Peter Obi.
Post-Judgment Analysis
Following the ruling, Asemota Igiogbe, leader of the Edo State Obidient Movement, predicted impending turbulence driven by court decisions. He advised that any serious presidential aspirant must align with a newer, cleaner party to secure an uncontested ticket and build momentum before the turmoil escalates, rather than after courts have transformed the party into a constitutional and succession battleground.
Igiogbe described the Supreme Court's decision as a "banana peel," as it permits the Federal High Court to examine the merits of the ADC leadership, thereby reviving internal party litigation that had previously been dismissed. He explained that this creates a legal slippery slope, appearing to clear the path but potentially causing future political and judicial missteps.
He recalled that the Supreme Court had previously ruled that courts should not routinely adjudicate party leadership disputes, emphasizing that such matters are internal to the party and not subject to ordinary judicial determination. He cited the Labour Party leadership case concerning the expiration of Abure's tenure as national chairman, which similarly highlighted that once a national chairman's constitutionally defined tenure ends, the party must re-elect or choose a new leader, and courts should generally avoid creating "judicial chairmen"—referred to by INEC as "CHAIRMAN BY COURT ORDER."
Igiogbe concluded, "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 and 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."
