A Nigerian journalist and political analyst, Simon Kolawole, has clarified the interpretation of a recent Supreme Court ruling, disputing widespread claims circulating on social media about its implications.
Kolawole stated that contrary to reports describing the judgment as a “deep dive,” the Supreme Court did not order the restoration of any “Mark-led” national officers, nor did it make any pronouncement on jurisdiction or direct the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to recognise any individual.
According to him, the apex court’s decision was more limited in scope. He explained that the court simply ruled that the high court must first determine whether it has jurisdiction over the matter before proceeding further.
Kolawole also noted that the Supreme Court found fault with the Court of Appeal’s decision to grant a preservatory order of “status quo ante bellum,” stressing that such an order should have been issued, if necessary, by the court of first instance.
Despite the controversies surrounding the ruling, Kolawole expressed relief at the decision of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to reverse its earlier position and re-recognise Mark.
His comments come amid ongoing legal and political debates over the implications of the Supreme Court judgment and its impact on party leadership disputes.
