The Supreme Court, yesterday, reserved judgment in the appeals and cross-appeals arising from the leadership crises in the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, and African Democratic Congress, ADC, after hearing all parties.
The apex court did not fix any date for its rulings, a decision that has varying implications for the feuding camps in both parties.
In the PDP, the case has already reshaped the party’s leadership, with earlier court decisions nullifying its Ibadan convention that produced Kabiru Turaki as national chairman and upholding the suspension of key officials.
This means that the PDP national executive, backed by the Federal Capital Territorry, FCT, Minister, Mr Nyesom Wike, that is recognised by the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, will remain in control, pending the verdict.
However, the ADC appears worse off as none of its three factions, led by Senator David Mark, Nafiu Bala Gombe and Ogga Temitope, is recognised by the electoral commission.
All the registered political parties have up till May 10 to submit their membership registers to INEC or they would not be eligible to sponsor candidates for the 2027 general polls.
This means if the Supreme Court did not deliver its verdict within 18 days, the ADC will not be on the ballot.
We expect justice from Judiciary — Turaki-led PDP
After proceedings at the apex court, where the appeals challenging judgments delivered by Justices Omotosho and Lifu of the Federal High Court, Abuja Division, and affirmed by the Court of Appeal, the Turaki-led PDP faction, in a statement by its National Publicity Secretary, Ini Ememobong, said it expected justice from the court.
The Court of Appeal had upheld the earlier rulings of the Federal High Court, which nullified the PDP’s convention held in Ibadan and sustained the suspension of several party officers, including Samuel Anyanwu and A.K. Ajibade, SAN.
Dissatisfied with the rulings, the Wike-backed PDP approached the Supreme Court, asking it to declare that both the trial court and the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter, insisting it arose from the internal affairs of the party.
Also dissatisfied, the respondents, led by Anyanwu, filed a cross-appeal, urging the apex court to set aside the aspect of the judgment that upheld the suspension of Ajibade, Anyanwu and others.
“All parties adopted their respective processes,” Ememobong said, adding that after hearing arguments, the court reserved judgment to a date to be communicated to counsel.
“We charge all true and uncompromised PDP members to keep their faith alive,” he said.
He added that the party remained hopeful that the apex court would deliver judgments that would preserve multi-party democracy and halt the emergence of a one-party state.
“The Supreme Court has, at several times in the history of our non-linear democratic experience, remained the last hope of Nigeria and Nigerians, even in the face of immense pressure and unimaginable risk,” Ememobong said.
We’re optimistic of victory — Bolaji Abdullahi
In a telephone chat with Vanguard after a five-member panel of the apex court, headed by Justice Mohammed Garba, reserved the ADC matter for judgment after hearing from all parties, Malam Bolaji Abdullahi, National Publicity Secretary of the Mark-led faction said they were optimistic of victory.
Sponsored
“We are optimistic with the fact that the things came up quickly and the Supreme Court is mindful of the exigency of the moment. We are optimistic that their ruling will be in record time and quite optimistic of the ruling going in our favour,” he said.
The appeal, marked SC/CV/180/2026, was filed by Senator David Mark.
The appellant, who leads a faction backed by frontline opposition figures, seeks to set aside a March 12 Court of Appeal judgment, which he said was against the interest of justice.
He argued that the appellate court exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering maintenance of the status quo ante bellum in a suit filed by aggrieved party members led by Nafiu-Bala Gombe.
Mark contended that the dispute involved a political party’s domestic affairs, in which courts lacked jurisdiction to intervene.
Beside Gombe, other respondents in the appeal include the ADC, the National, Rauf Aregbesola, the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, and the immediate past national chairman of the party, Chief Ralph Nwosu.
Mark sought, among other reliefs, an order restraining INEC from recognizing anyone other than him and the current national officers, pending determination of the appeal.
He also requested orders barring INEC from altering the party’s leadership structure as currently constituted and staying proceedings in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025 before Justice Emeka Nwite at the Federal High Court, Abuja, until the appeal is heard.
While adopting their brief of argument, Mark’s legal team, led by Mr. Jubril Okutepa, SAN, insisted the dispute was a non-justiciable internal party matter, as previously held by the Supreme Court.
Although INEC did not file any process to either support or counter the appeal, all the other respondents, however, urged the apex court to dismiss it for want of merit.
They maintained that the trial court was properly seized of facts of the case that was still pending before it.
INEC had removed Mark and Aregbesola from its portal and website as ADC National Chairman and Secretary, respectively, on April 1, citing the Court of Appeal’s judgment.
The electoral body said it would, in line with the order for maintenance of the status quo ante bellum, not recognise any of the warring factions until the legal dispute was determined.
However, despite INEC’s action which the Mark-led faction has asked the Supreme Court to nullify, ADC vowed to proceed with its scheduled national convention.
Justice Nwite of the Federal High Court had on April 14, adjourned sine die (indefinitely), hearing of the substantive case that Gombe filed to sack the Senator Mark-led leadership of the ADC.
Justice Nwite said he could not proceed with the matter, in view of the related issue before the Supreme Court.
He ruled that proceeding would amount to “judicial rascality” while the related appeal pends before the Supreme Court.
