Justice Musa Liman of the Federal High Court in Abuja will deliver judgment on April 13 in a suit filed by House of Representatives member Hon. Leke Abejide challenging the leadership of Senator David Mark in the African Democratic Congress (ADC). Abejide is seeking to stop Mark and Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola from presenting themselves as the party's national chairman and national secretary, respectively. The suit, numbered FHC/ABJ/CS/1637/2025, names ADC, former chairman Ralph Nwosu, and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as co-defendants. Among eight reliefs, Abejide wants the court to nullify Nwosu's handover of leadership to Mark and Aregbesola on July 2, 2025, at Shehu Musa Yar'adua Centre, calling it illegal. He also seeks a perpetual injunction to stop INEC from recognizing their appointments, citing non-compliance with Section 82 of the Electoral Act, 2022. The defendants argue the matter concerns internal party affairs, which they claim are non-justiciable, and question Abejide's legal standing. They also dispute the July 2 date, asserting the leadership was elected July 29, 2025.
Separately, Justice Emeka Nwite set April 14 for hearing a similar suit by Hon. Nafiu Bala Gombe, challenging the same leadership. The Court of Appeal, in a March 12 ruling, directed parties to return to the trial court and maintain the status quo. Following that, INEC removed Mark and Aregbesola's names from its website on April 1. In response, their legal team, led by Sulaiman Usman, SAN, filed a motion on April 7 seeking restoration of their names. Mark and Aregbesola have separately moved to dismiss Gombe's suit, arguing he lacks locus standi after resigning as deputy national chairman. Aregbesola's counter affidavit claims Gombe cannot both affirm and deny party membership, as he stepped down to allow for coalition restructuring.
Senator David Mark's attempt to cement control over the ADC is now squarely in the hands of the judiciary, but the deeper issue lies in how political defections and internal party crises are increasingly being outsourced to courts instead of resolved internally. The fact that two separate lawsuits challenging his leadership are before the same court — one awaiting judgment, the other set for hearing — underscores the fragmentation within the ADC and the weaponization of legal processes to settle political scores.
The timing of INEC's removal of Mark and Aregbesola from its portal on April 1, following a Court of Appeal directive, adds regulatory weight to the legal challenges. Yet Mark's camp responded not with political reconciliation but with a motion to compel INEC to reinstate them, suggesting a reliance on institutional validation rather than grassroots legitimacy. The defendants' repeated claim that party affairs are non-justiciable rings hollow when they simultaneously seek judicial intervention to restore their names. This duality reveals a pattern: Nigerian political actors routinely invoke party autonomy when defending actions, but abandon the principle the moment courts can serve their interests.
For ordinary ADC members and voters who identify with the party, this legal tug-of-war creates confusion about who legitimately speaks for the ADC. If leadership is determined not by convention or membership consensus but by courtroom outcomes, it weakens internal democracy and public trust. Voters in constituencies where ADC fielded candidates may now question the authenticity of the party's representation.
This case fits a broader trend in Nigerian politics where leadership disputes in smaller parties often hinge more on judicial maneuvering than popular support. As larger parties absorb defectors, smaller ones like ADC become battlegrounds for elite control, with little regard for ideological direction or member participation. The judiciary, already overburdened, is left to referee what should be political negotiations.
