The Federal High Court in Abuja has adjourned indefinitely a suit challenging the leadership structure of the African Democratic Congress (ADC). The decision follows disputes over a letter sent by the plaintiff to the Chief Judge while the case was still pending. Counsel for one of the defendants criticized the plaintiff's private communication with the Chief Judge, calling it improper and a potential threat to judicial process. The lawyer argued that requesting the court to pause proceedings based on the letter could set a dangerous precedent.
Representing the fifth defendant, P.I. Oyewole, another lawyer described the plaintiff's action as unusual and suggested an attempt to improperly influence the Chief Judge. In response, the plaintiff's counsel, Haruna, maintained that the application before the court was valid and deserved consideration. Justice James Omotosho Nwite ruled that the court could not act on the letter without giving all parties a chance to respond. He stated that doing so would breach the defendants' constitutional right to fair hearing.
The judge emphasized that since the letter was addressed directly to the Chief Judge, the trial court had no authority to make rulings based on its contents. He adjourned the case indefinitely, directing parties to obtain and file a Certified True Copy of a related Supreme Court judgment on an interlocutory appeal. The court also ordered that the defendants be formally served with a copy of the letter sent to the Chief Judge. All further proceedings will depend on directives from the leadership of the Federal High Court.
The plaintiff sought private intervention from the Chief Judge while the case was ongoing, yet expects the trial court to validate that same move. This undermines the principle of equal access to justice that the ADC leadership contest is supposed to uphold. Nigerians named in the suit are now in a procedural limbo that their own actions helped create. The court's refusal to act unilaterally exposes the risk of bypassing due process even in internal party disputes.
Editorial note: AI-assisted opinion. All persons mentioned are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Full disclaimer →
