#Cityboi _Mǐcђα̲̅εℓ

You would think only our leaders are corrupt? Wait till you meet an average young Nigerian

STATUS QUO ANTE BELLUM AND ITS APPLICATION IN THE ADC LEADERSHIP CASE The confusion here appears to arise from an imprecise appreciation of the meaning and scope of an order directing the maintenance of the “status quo ante bellum”. Status quo ante bellum has been defined as the state of affairs existing before the commencement of hostilities between the parties. In that sense, it may, in appropriate circumstances, be understood as requiring a reversion to the position that existed prior to the Defendant’s alleged wrongful act. For instance, where the complaint arises from the Defendant’s forcible takeover of the Plaintiff’s land, an order to maintain the status quo ante bellum may properly be taken to refer to the state of affairs that existed before that alleged takeover. According to INEC, its understanding of the meaning and scope of the Court of Appeal’s order directing the maintenance of the status quo ante bellum was that the names of the current members of the National Working Committee of the ADC, led by its Chairman and uploaded to its portal after the suit by Hon. Nafiu Bala Gombe was instituted at the Federal High Court, ought to be removed. With respect, it is difficult to see how such a step can properly fall within the permissible scope of an order of status quo ante bellum, regardless of how broadly its effect is conceived. In this case, Hon. Nafiu Bala Gombe contends that, as the Vice-Chairman of the ADC, and having not resigned from that office, he is entitled to assume the position of Chairman upon the resignation of Mr. Ralph Okey Nwosu. On that basis, he has approached the Federal High Court by way of a motion for interlocutory injunction, seeking to restrain the current Chairman and Secretary of the ADC from holding themselves out or acting in those capacities, including in their dealings with INEC. That application remains pending before the Federal High Court and has yet to be determined. By removing the names of the current members of the National Working Committee of the ADC, particularly that of the Chairman, INEC appears to have lent implicit support to the Plaintiff’s contention that, having not resigned his position, he is entitled to assume the chairmanship following the resignation of Mr. Ralph Okey Nwosu. That issue remains pending before the trial Court, and it is, with respect, inappropriate for INEC to take steps that touch on its merits, even on a provisional basis, in reliance on an order directing the maintenance of the status quo ante bellum made by the Court of Appeal. Furthermore, construing the Court of Appeal’s order directing the maintenance of the status quo ante bellum, which was intended to preserve the subject matter of the pending suit, so as to require the removal of the names of the current members of the National Working Committee of the ADC from INEC’s portal, effectively amounts to a resolution of the pending motion for interlocutory injunction in favour of Hon. Nafiu Bala Gombe, notwithstanding that the application remains undetermined before the trial Court. Indeed, it may even be contended that such an interpretation extends beyond the reliefs sought by Hon. Nafiu Bala Gombe in his motion for interlocutory injunction. From the facts available, the application is limited to restraining the current Chairman and Secretary of the ADC from holding themselves out or acting in those capacities, including in their dealings with INEC. It does not seek the removal of their names from INEC’s portal, much less the removal of the names of other members of the National Working Committee who are neither mentioned in the application nor joined as parties to the substantive suit. In my view, regardless of how broadly the meaning or effect of status quo ante bellum is conceived, it ought not to be interpreted in a manner that effectively resolves or lends validation to issues that remain contested and yet to be determined by the Court, an outcome INEC appears to have reached in this instance. INEC, in compliance with the Court of Appeal’s order of status quo ante bellum, should have simply maintained the existing state of affairs, leaving all names on its portal intact and refraining from any actions that might affect the merits of the pending suit or motion for interlocutory injunction. Any order for removal of names is properly within the purview of the trial Court, should it grant the motion for interlocutory injunction or the reliefs sought in the substantive suit. It is not for INEC to take such a step independently.