Delayed S’Court judgment: Opposition fears election exclusion, ADC petitions CJN

Concerns are mounting within the African Democratic Congress and the Peoples Democratic Party over the delay in the Supreme Court’s judgment as the Independent National Electoral Commission’s deadline for submission of party membership registers approaches.

The development has further raised anxiety about the possible exclusion of the opposition parties from the 2027 elections.

Worried by the situation, the ADC, on Tuesday, wrote to the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun.

In the letter, the party urged the Supreme Court to urgently deliver judgment in a pending appeal involving the party’s leadership crisis.

In a letter dated April 28, addressed to the Chief Justice of Nigeria, signed by its legal counsel, Shuaibu E. Aruwa (SAN), the party cautioned that continued delay could have severe consequences for its participation in the electoral process. The letter stressed the urgency of judicial intervention to avoid disenfranchisement.

Meanwhile, the Oyo State Governor, Seyi Makinde-backed PDP, National Publicity Secretary, Ini Ememobong, in an exclusive interview with The PUNCH, equally expressed concern over the situation but maintained optimism, noting that while the delay is worrying, they remain hopeful that the courts will ultimately dispense justice fairly and in good time.

On its part, Jungudo Mohammed, the National Publicity Secretary of the PDP bloc led by Minister of Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, dismissed concerns that the delay is affecting its activities, insisting that it remains the legally recognised leadership of the party and continues to operate without disruption despite the pending Supreme Court judgment.

On April 22, the Supreme Court concluded the hearing on the leadership dispute affecting the ADC and PDP and subsequently reserved judgment.

A five-member panel of the apex court, led by Justice Mohammed Garba, did not announce a date for the ruling after listening to arguments in separate appeals challenging earlier decisions of the lower courts on the matter.

Six days after the conclusion of the hearing, there is growing anxiety among the 2027 aspirants in the two opposition parties, as the Supreme Court has yet to communicate a date for the judgment.

While the ruling All Progressives Congress has advanced significantly in its internal preparations and has already commenced the sale of nomination forms to aspirants, the PDP and ADC have yet to fully begin key activities, even as the INEC deadline for submission of party membership registers draws closer.

INEC had fixed May 10 as the deadline for political parties to submit their membership registers. It also scheduled the Presidential and National Assembly elections for Saturday, January 16, 2027, while governorship and state House of Assembly elections will be held on Saturday, February 6, 2027.

According to the timetable, party primaries and the resolution of related disputes will take place between April 23, 2026, and May 30, 2026.

Campaigns for the Presidential and National Assembly elections are expected to begin on August 19, 2026, while campaigns for governorship and state assembly elections will commence on September 9, 2026.

Reacting, ADC counsel warned that a three-day further delay could threaten ADC’s participation in the 2027 general elections.

The ex-Senate President’s ADC legal team, in a letter on Suit No SC/CV/180/2026, warned that, in the circumstances of the case, justice delayed would amount to justice denied.

The letter read in part, “We are counsel to the African Democratic Congress, the 2nd respondent in the above-mentioned appeal.

“My Lord, this appeal was graciously heard expeditiously on the 22nd April, 2026, and judgment was thereafter reserved to a date to be communicated by the court.

“However, My Lord, we are most respectfully constrained to request for my Lord’s kind intervention and directive in ensuring that the judgment is rendered timeously having regard that INEC the 4th Respondent in the said Appeal purportedly, acting pursuant to the judgment of the lower court in Appeal No: CA/ABJ/145/2026 acted to remove or de-recognise the leadership of the African Democratic Congress, leaving the ADC without leadership at the moment even though the ADC remains a recognised registered political party in Nigeria.

“My Lord, we also respectfully draw Your Lordship’s attention to the INEC timetable for the 2027 general elections and the activities in readiness which have already commenced.

“Your Lordship would find attached copies of the INEC press release de-recognising the leadership of ADC and the revised INEC timetable for the 2027 General Elections.”

The legal team stated that ADC’s ability to meet the statutory conditions for participation in the 2027 general elections depends entirely on the prompt delivery of judgment in the appeal.

It continued, “Without the delivery of judgment within the next three days from the date of this letter, the ADC stands the grave and irreversible risk of being excluded from participating in the 2027 general elections.

“This would disenfranchise millions of Nigerians who have subscribed to the ideals of the ADC and deny them their constitutional right to freely associate and contest elections through a political party of their choice.

“My Lord, we are mindful of the enormous responsibilities and workload of this honourable court. We are equally aware that justice delayed, in this peculiar circumstance, would amount to justice denied.

“The entire political future of our client and the legitimate expectations of its members nationwide now hang in the balance.”

Speaking in the same vein, the Governor Makinde-backed PDP praised the Supreme Court for the fast-tracked hearing, but voiced concern over the delay in delivering the judgment.

Ememobong stated, “As an affected party, we are equally concerned, but we also respect and have confidence in the judiciary. The court has already demonstrated good faith by abridging time, departing from its usual rules, and granting an accelerated hearing. Ultimately, the final decision rests with the judgment of the court.

“As a lawyer, I understand that the records of appeal are extensive, running into thousands of pages, especially as we are seeking the nullification of the judgments of two lower courts. The court is therefore fully aware of the time constraints, as reflected in its decision to grant an accelerated hearing.

“Our only appeal is that, despite any inconvenience or pressure, the court should deliver its judgment within a reasonable time, in line with the legal principle that justice delayed is justice denied.

“We remain hopeful, but it is not the role of any party to pre-empt or second-guess the court. We have presented our case based on established legal principles relating to the internal affairs of political parties.

“It is now for the Honourable Justices to determine whether the facts before them align with those principles as previously established. We are confident in the judicial process and await the court’s decision.”

On its part, the Wike-led PDP faction stated that what matters to them is not the speed of the judgment, but the fairness and quality of justice delivered.

Its Publicity Secretary, Mohammed, stated, “It is not going to affect our activities or our plans because, as it stands today, we remain the lawfully recognised leadership of the PDP. We are not concerned about the delay in the Supreme Court judgment, as the court is clearly taking its time to ensure a thorough and well-considered decision in a matter of significant political interest.

“We are confident that the court intends to deliver substantial justice. The grant of an accelerated hearing further reinforces our belief that due process is being carefully followed. For us, it is not about how quickly judgment is delivered, but how well justice is served.

“We are fully prepared to accept whatever outcome the court arrives at, although we remain optimistic about the eventual judgment of the Supreme Court.”

He further stated, “Our optimism is rooted in the fact that the Supreme Court is not a forum for introducing fresh evidence or new issues. The matter has already been considered at the Federal High Court, whose decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeal.

“Based on the records and legal principles involved, we believe that justice has been properly dispensed and that the Supreme Court is unlikely to depart from those facts and findings.”(Punch)