The Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday declined to proceed with the African Democratic Congress (ADC) leadership suit filed by Nafiu-Bala Gombe, adjourning the case sine die. Justice Emeka Nwite ruled that hearing the matter while a jurisdictional challenge pends at the Supreme Court would undermine the apex court's authority. The judge noted that Senator David Mark, the ADC national chairman and second defendant in the suit, had filed an appeal at the Supreme Court on March 16, 2026, challenging the Court of Appeal's March 12 judgment, which dismissed his interlocutory appeal and ordered an accelerated hearing at the lower court. Justice Nwite stated that reliefs sought by Mark at the Supreme Court, including a stay of execution of the appellate judgment, meant the lower court must await the final determination.
Gombe's lawyer, Lukman Fagbemi, SAN, had urged the court to adjourn the case indefinitely pending the Supreme Court's decision, citing the ongoing appeal. He referenced the Court of Appeal's order preserving the status quo ante bellum and mandating an expedited hearing. However, ADC counsel Shaibu Aruwa, SAN, and Mark's lawyer Sulaiman Usman, SAN, argued the lower court should proceed, pointing to the appellate court's directive for accelerated hearing. Usman added that INEC had wrongly interpreted the appellate ruling by removing Mark and Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola from their party positions. Justice Nwite rejected the argument, stating that allowing proceedings to continue during a jurisdictional dispute would be legally improper.
Senator David Mark's decision to escalate his ADC leadership battle to the Supreme Court exposes the fragility of internal party governance, where legal manoeuvres are increasingly used to freeze political outcomes. Rather than resolving disputes through party structures, the recourse to interlocutory appeals and jurisdictional challenges turns leadership contests into prolonged judicial exercises, with Mark's appeal effectively halting a trial court's ability to act despite a clear appellate directive.
This case reflects a broader pattern in Nigerian politics where court processes are weaponised to maintain control, even when appellate courts have issued binding orders. The Court of Appeal had already dismissed Mark's earlier appeal and ordered an accelerated hearing, yet the mere filing of a new appeal at the Supreme Court—without a stay granted—has brought the entire process to a standstill. The judiciary's deference to higher court procedures, while legally sound, enables powerful figures to exploit technicalities, delaying accountability and deepening institutional uncertainty within political parties.
Ordinary ADC members are left in limbo, unable to hold conventions, make decisions, or present a united front ahead of elections. With the party's leadership status frozen, grassroots members and aspirants lose influence, while the public perception of ADC as a functional opposition party erodes. When party leadership hinges on courtroom tactics rather than democratic consensus, the cost is paid not by the litigants, but by the members who have no voice in the legal drama.
This is not an isolated incident. Across multiple parties—from PDP to APC—leadership disputes are routinely outsourced to courts, turning political conflicts into decade-long litigations. The result is weakened party structures, diminished internal democracy, and a system where the ability to fund appeals often determines who leads.
💡 NaijaBuzz is a news aggregator. This content is curated and editorially enhanced from third-party sources. The NaijaBuzz Take represents editorial opinion and analysis, not established fact.
