The Politics of Status Quo Bellum Ante-

By Okoi Obono-Obla

I do not understand the propensity for employing hackneyed tactics such as passing the buck, using red herrings, and blaming others for crises one has clearly precipitated. You claimed to be forming a coalition by coalescing political parties to merge and challenge the incumbent government. Nigerians became expectant, waiting for months, but the coalition never materialized. Instead, you moved en bloc into a political party that has long suffered arrested development, supplanted its executives, and undemocratically replaced them with your own chosen ones.

The displaced executives resisted, questioning why you should invade their party and take it over. They challenged your effrontery in court, seeking an injunction to restrain you from parading yourselves as leaders of their party. The court, in its wisdom, held that justice required the defendants to be put on notice. Dissatisfied, you appealed. Yet the Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s ruling, directing that the status quo bellum ante be maintained pending determination of the injunction.

What is status quo bellum ante? It is a Latin phrase meaning “the state of affairs existing before the war or dispute.” In law, it refers to the last peaceful, uncontested position between parties before conflict. Thus, the executives who were running the party prior to the invasion were to remain in charge until the matter was resolved.

Rather than comply with the directive, you flouted it, ignored the order, and began a blame game, heaping accusations on the governing party. When the rightful executives, through counsel, wrote to the regulator urging enforcement of the court’s directive, you raised false alarms, alleging destabilization by the government—all because one politician, overhyped for winning only one state out of thirty‑six and Abuja in 2023, was involved. Haba!

Conclusion:
The principle of status quo bellum ante is meant to preserve peace and fairness while disputes are adjudicated. Flouting such directives undermines both the rule of law and democratic order.