The Supreme Court will hear an appeal by Senator David Mark, National Chairman of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), on April 14. Mark is seeking to halt the enforcement of a March 12 judgment from the Court of Appeal in the case SC/CV/180/2026. The appeal challenges the appellate court's ruling in suit number CA/ABJ/CV/145/2026, which directed parties to maintain the status quo pending resolution of a leadership dispute within the ADC. Mark's legal team, led by Realwan Okpanachi, filed a motion requesting the apex court to stop the execution of the Appeal Court's judgment. The motion also seeks to prevent the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising any other ADC officials aside from Mark and the existing national officers. INEC removed Mark and Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola from its portal on April 1, following the appellate decision. Mark's lawyers argue that enforcing the judgment would render his appeal meaningless. They assert the appeal raises substantial legal questions and that justice requires preserving the current party structure. The Federal High Court, presided over by Justice Emeka Nwite, had previously directed Nafiu-Bala Gombe, the plaintiff, to serve notice on all defendants. Gombe, the former ADC Deputy National Chairman, had challenged the legitimacy of Mark's leadership, citing violations of the party's constitution and the Electoral Act.
David Mark's last-ditch effort at the Supreme Court exposes the fragility of political legitimacy built on judicial delays rather than institutional clarity. At 75, and with his name already scrubbed from INEC's records, Mark is not just fighting a court battle—he is attempting to freeze reality through legal procedure, banking on the Supreme Court to override administrative action already in motion. The fact that INEC acted on the Appeal Court's judgment before the apex court hearing underscores how legal processes now serve less as resolution mechanisms and more as tactical tools in Nigerian political warfare.
This case is not truly about constitutional breaches or party statutes—it is about control of a political platform ahead of future elections. The ADC, though marginal in national influence, remains a vehicle for political positioning, especially for figures like Mark and Aregbesola with established profiles. Gombe's challenge, grounded in the party's internal rules, gained traction in court, forcing a re-examination of how party leaderships are validated. Yet the delay tactics reveal a broader dysfunction: political disputes are increasingly outsourced to courts, prolonging uncertainty and weakening party structures. When INEC removes leaders administratively while appeals drag on, it signals that legal purgatory does not suspend political consequences.
Ordinary ADC members and supporters are the unseen casualties. Their party's public image fractures with each court filing, diluting any momentum it might build ahead of elections. Grassroots members lose direction when national leadership is in flux, and funding or alliances stall. For Nigerians watching yet another political drama unfold in court, the message is clear: party loyalty means little when power hinges on judicial timing.
This fits a well-worn pattern—senior politicians using the judiciary to maintain relevance after losing internal legitimacy. Mark's move mirrors past attempts by other party figures to cling to office through injunctions, not votes.
