Court Adjourns Indefinitely Leadership Suit Against David Mark-Led ADC

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Friday indefinitely adjourned the suit filed by Nafiu Bala Gombe challenging the leadership of the African Democratic Congress under former Senate President David Mark.

Justice 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 sparked fresh leadership tensions within the ADC following the emergence of David Mark and former Osun State governor Rauf Aregbesola in the party’s leadership structure.

During proceedings, counsel to the plaintiff, Luka Musa Haruna, told the court that the Supreme Court had on April 30 dismissed the interlocutory appeal previously filed by David Mark against the case.

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 that the matter be transferred to another judge.

He urged Justice Nwite to await the administrative decision of the Chief Judge before proceeding further with the case.

The request was strongly opposed by lawyers representing the defendants, who accused the plaintiff of attempting to delay the accelerated hearing earlier ordered by the Court of Appeal and affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Counsel for the first defendant, Realwan Okpanachi, argued that the defence had not been served with the application and described the move as an ambush.

“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.

He further alleged that the application was intended to frustrate the accelerated hearing of the case.

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 argued.

Lawyer to the fifth defendant, P.I. Oyewole, also opposed the request, describing it as unusual and accusing the plaintiff of attempting to draw the Chief Judge into what he called “judicial rascality.”

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

In his ruling, Justice Nwite held that the court could not take any action on the letter without first hearing all parties involved in the suit.

“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 added that because the letter was addressed to the Chief Judge, the trial court could not make pronouncements on it.

Justice Nwite subsequently 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 a court order restraining David Mark, Aregbesola and others from presenting themselves as leaders of the ADC, arguing that their emergence violated the party’s constitution as well as provisions of the Electoral Act.