Supreme Court reserves judgment in ADC leadership crisis

From Godwin Tsa Abuja

The Supreme Court has reserved judgment in the appeal by the Senator David Mark led- leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), in relation to the leadership crisis rocking the party.

A five-member panel of the apex court, headed by Justice Mohammed Garba, reserved the matter for judgment after hearing from all parties.

The appeal, marked SC/CV/180/2026, was filed by Senator David Mark seeking  to set aside a March 12 Court of Appeal judgment, which he said was against the interest of justice.

Specifically, Mark has asked the apex court to grant an order staying the execution of the Court of Appeal’s ruling on March 12, that dismissed his appeal in relation to the ongoing leadership dispute in the party.

The decision by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), on April 1, to withdraw recognition from both the Mark-and Bala-led factions, citing a subsisting Court of Appeal order to maintain the status quo ante bellum, has left the party without an officially recognized leadership structure.

INEC said it would not engage with any faction pending a final judicial determination, a position that could have far-reaching implications for the party’s participation in the 2027 election.

A three-member panel of the Court of Appeal, led by Justice Uchechukwu Onyemenam had upheld the objection raised by Mr Nafiu Bala Gombe, insisting that the appeal was incompetent and that it was based on issues not reflected in the ruling of the trial court.

The ex-Senate President had appealed a September 4, 2025 ruling by Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court in Abuja that refused to grant some injunctive reliefs contained in an ex-parte application filed by Bala.

In his appeal before the apex court, Mark 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 involves a political party’s domestic affairs, in which courts lack jurisdiction to intervene.

Besides Gombe, other respondents in the appeal include the ADC, the National Secretary 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 is 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, however, all the other respondents 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 is 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 is determined.

However, despite INEC’s action—which the Mark-led faction has asked the Supreme Court to nullify—the 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.