by Achadu Gabriel, Kaduna
A Kaduna-based legal practitioner, Abuul Hiifan Andrew, Esq., has weighed-in on the judgment of the Federal High Court in Abuja nullifying the David Mark-led National Executive Committee (NEC) of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) and all actions taken by it, saying the only option open to the losing parties is to challenge the verdict at the Court of Appeal.
In a legal opinion, titled, ‘Re: Bala Vs. David Mark & Ors,’ Andrew said the judgment has generated unnecessary political tension, with many analysts being either objective or subjective, and some casting aspersions on the integrity of the court without cogent facts.
He noted that, ethically, professionally and morally, learned Justices cannot join public discourse to defend or advance reasons for their judgments, stressing that the onus is on the Bar and not the Bench to explain the law. “Supreme Court Order Did Not Confer Leadership,” he stated.
Barr. Andrew stated that his candid opinion is that the outcome of the appeal against the interlocutory ruling of the Federal High Court by the Supreme Court urging the status quo to be maintained, while the substantive matter is determined by the trial court, was right.
However, he clarified that the Supreme Court order did not confer any leadership right on any of the parties or resolve the leadership tussle in the ADC.
“Same did not confer any leadership right on any of the parties or resolved the leadership tussle,” he stated.
On calls for reassignment to new Judge Ignorant, the lawyer dismissed arguments that the matter ought to be reassigned to a new judge, describing those making the argument as ignorant of the law.
“If the Supreme Court desired the matter to be reassigned, it would have made it explicit in their Orders to the effect that the substantive matter be reassigned to a new Judge to handle,” Andrew said.
He added that time is of the essence and the right to appeal is constitutional for every party to explore, rather than embarking on media bunkum and gambits.
On whether ADC wasted time on Interlocutory Appeal, Andrew observed that the ADC, under David Mark, spent much time and energy prosecuting an interlocutory appeal on the ground that the status quo must be maintained and secured victory, but noted that an injunction cannot rest on a completed act.
He said the success at the interlocutory stage did not settle the leadership question, particularly whether Nafiu Bala, who did not formally resign, will be ignored or sidelined from the leadership of the ADC, if he has not consented to it.
According to him, the leaders in the ADC would have looked for a political and diplomatic approach in solving their internal crisis, rather than embarking on a futile legal battle.
“Legal practitioners may do their best but the law and fact remain constant and static,” Andrew concluded.