The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) president, Afam Osigwe, SAN, has urged courts to stop using Latin legal phrases such as "status quo ante bellum" in judicial orders. Speaking on Channels TV's Politics Today programme on Friday, Osigwe argued that such phrases create confusion, especially in politically sensitive cases. He cited the current crisis within the African Democratic Congress (ADC), where a Court of Appeal order to maintain the "status quo ante bellum" led to conflicting interpretations. The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) acted on one interpretation, delisting the David Mark faction from its portal, while the faction rejected the move, claiming legitimacy. Protests followed at INEC's Abuja headquarters, with another claimant, Nafiu Bala Gombe, also emerging as national chairman. Osigwe stressed that Section 83 of the Electoral Act 2026 prohibits courts from intervening in internal party matters. He warned that lawyers filing such cases abuse court processes, and the NBA will sanction them via the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC). He also called on the National Judicial Council (NJC) to sanction judges who overstep constitutional limits. Osigwe further criticized government executives for personally funding judicial needs, saying it undermines judicial independence and public trust.
Afam Osigwe's blunt warning about Latin legal phrases is less about language and more about the judiciary's growing entanglement in political chaos, particularly as the 2027 elections loom. By naming the "status quo ante bellum" confusion in the ADC crisis, Osigwe spotlighted how obscure judicial language gives room for INEC, rival factions, and even the public to weaponize court orders. The fact that David Mark's faction was delisted while protests erupted at INEC's headquarters shows how legal ambiguity fuels political instability.
The deeper issue is the systematic violation of Section 83 of the Electoral Act 2026, which explicitly bars courts from meddling in internal party affairs. Yet lawyers keep filing cases, and judges keep granting injunctions, turning courts into political arbiters. Osigwe's threat to report erring judges to the NJC and sanction lawyers through the LPDC is a rare institutional pushback. His criticism of governors funding courtrooms and judges' cars also exposes the quiet erosion of judicial independence, where statutory allocations are delayed, forcing chief judges to beg at Government Houses.
For ordinary Nigerians, especially voters and party members, this legal-political blur means party leadership disputes are no longer settled internally but through costly, drawn-out court battles that favor those with connections and resources. It entrenches elite manipulation of democratic structures. This is not an isolated trend but part of a broader pattern where courts, lawyers, and electoral bodies are pulled into political feuds, weakening public confidence in institutions meant to safeguard democracy.
