The Obidient Movement has indicated it may consider alternatives to the African Democratic Congress (ADC) following a Supreme Court judgment on the party’s leadership crisis.
Gatekeepers News reports that the apex court, in its ruling on Thursday, directed that the dispute be addressed by the Federal High Court, which had earlier ordered a status quo ante bellum.
Prior to the judgment, the Interim National Coordinator of Obidient Movement Worldwide, Yunusa Tanko, had predicted that the Supreme Court might return the matter to the lower court.
“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 wrote on X.
Tanko described the development as an orchestration by “anti-democratic and centrifugal forces” targeting former presidential candidate Peter Obi.
Following the verdict, Edo State leader of the movement, Asemota Igiogbe, warned of looming political turbulence driven by court decisions.
He advised that any serious presidential aspirant should align with a “newer, cleaner party” to secure a clear ticket and build political momentum ahead of potential instability.
“The ADC is now a political cul-de-sac, and any serious presidential aspirant must attach to a newer, cleaner party… secure a clear ticket, and build momentum before the turbulence hits—not after courts have turned the party into a constitutional and succession-battlefield,” Igiogbe said.
He described the Supreme Court’s decision as a “banana peel,” warning that it could reopen internal disputes within the ADC.
“It looks like it clears the path but may actually cause future political and judicial trips,” he said, noting that the ruling allows the Federal High Court to examine the substance of the party’s leadership crisis.
Igiogbe also recalled the Supreme Court’s earlier stance that courts should generally refrain from intervening in internal party leadership disputes, stressing that such matters are typically not subject to judicial determination.
Referencing the leadership tussle in the Labour Party, he said cases involving the expiration of a national chairman’s tenure highlight the need for parties to resolve their leadership issues internally rather than through court-imposed solutions.
He warned against the emergence of “judicial chairmen,” noting that such outcomes are sometimes reflected on the electoral body’s portal as “chairman by court order.”
According to him, the current situation within the ADC risks turning the party into a prolonged legal and political battleground, making it less viable for serious presidential contenders.
