Court adjourns ADC leadership suit indefinitely

ADC Logo 1

A federal high court in Abuja has indefinitely adjourned a suit filed by Nafiu Bala Gombe challenging the leadership structure of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) under former Senate President David Mark.

Justice Emeka Nwite adjourned the matter sine die after the plaintiff informed the court that an application had been submitted to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court requesting that the case be reassigned to another judge.

The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025, has triggered renewed internal tensions within the ADC following the emergence of David Mark and former Osun State governor Rauf Aregbesola in the party’s leadership structure.

At Friday’s proceedings, counsel to the plaintiff, Luka Musa Haruna, informed the court that the Supreme Court had on April 30 dismissed an interlocutory appeal previously filed by Mark.

According to him, the apex court also nullified the Court of Appeal’s earlier order staying proceedings in the substantive suit.

“The interlocutory appeal of the second defendant has travelled to the Supreme Court. My Lord, we are glad to inform this honourable court that on the 30th day of April 2026, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment on the interlocutory appeal dismissing the said appeal for lacking in merit,” he said.

Haruna, however, disclosed that the plaintiff had written to the Chief Judge on May 4, 2026, requesting transfer of the case to another judge.

“At this juncture, we must humbly pray to your Lordship, to wait for the administrative decision of the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court,” Haruna said.

Lawyers representing the defendants opposed the request, accusing the plaintiff of attempting to delay proceedings and undermine the accelerated hearing earlier ordered by the Court of Appeal and affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Counsel for the first defendant, Realwan Okpanachi, said the defence had not been formally served with the application.

“We have not received any communication regarding that application. My Lord, so as it is, we don’t know the form or the content of that application. Therefore, we take the approach of the plaintiff as an ambush,” he said.

“We also consider it as an attempt to frustrate the order of accelerated hearing granted by the Court of Appeal and upheld by the Supreme Court,” he added.

Counsel for the second defendant, Sulaiman Usman, described the move as “forum shopping and judge shopping.”

“So my Lord, for the plaintiffs to come back to this court, and to inform us today that they have written a private correspondence to the Honourable Chief Judge, and to hinge that to make a request for this court to await the outcome of that private correspondence, is not only unfortunate My Lord, but a dangerous trend which must not be allowed to stand,” he said.

Another defence lawyer, P.I. Oyewole, also criticised the application, describing it as unusual and accusing the plaintiff of inviting the Chief Judge “to indulge in judicial rascality.”

Responding, Haruna maintained that the plaintiff stood by the application.

In his ruling, Justice Nwite stated that the court could not act on the letter without first hearing all parties involved.

“Taking a decision or any action in such a letter without hearing from the defendants will amount to breach of their fundamental right in this suit,” the judge ruled.

He further noted that because the letter was addressed to the Chief Judge, the trial court lacked authority to make pronouncements on it.

Justice Nwite consequently adjourned the case indefinitely.

“This matter is best adjourned sine die to afford the parties properly file a Certified True Copy of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the interlocutory appeal in the suit, to serve the defendants with the letter addressed to the Honourable Chief Judge, and finally to await further or any directive from the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court,” he said.

Gombe is seeking an order restraining David Mark, Rauf Aregbesola and others from presenting themselves as leaders of the ADC, arguing that their emergence violated the party’s constitution and provisions of the Electoral Act.