The African Democratic Congress (ADC), led by Senator David Mark, has filed a motion at the Federal High Court in Abuja seeking to reverse the Independent National Electoral Commission's (INEC) removal of its leadership names from official records. On 1 April 2025, INEC deleted the names of David Mark, National Chairman, and Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, National Secretary, from its portal, citing a leadership dispute within the party. Mark's legal team, headed by Senior Advocate of Nigeria Sulaiman Usman, filed the motion on 7 April 2025, requesting the court to reinstate the names of Mark, Aregbesola, and other National Working Committee (NWC) members, and to restrain INEC from interfering with the party's internal structure. The ADC also wants INEC to formally recognise the current leadership pending the resolution of the legal battle. This follows a Court of Appeal ruling on 12 March 2025 that directed parties to maintain the "status quo ante bellum." Usman argued that INEC's action created a leadership vacuum, risking instability and parallel claims. A related motion filed on 2 April but submitted on 7 April seeks an expedited hearing, with Usman warning that uncertainty undermines the party's operations. The Federal High Court on 4 September 2025 refused to stop Mark's leadership from functioning and adjourned the substantive suit to 15 September 2025. The case originated from a suit by Nafiu Bala Gombe, former Deputy National Chairman, who challenged the legitimacy of the current leadership.
David Mark's scramble to legally entrench his position as ADC National Chairman exposes the fragility of party structures when personal ambition overrides institutional process. The fact that INEC removed his name—and that of Rauf Aregbesola—on 1 April 2025 suggests a breakdown not just in internal party democracy, but in how electoral authorities interpret judicial directives. The Court of Appeal's 12 March 2025 order to maintain the "status quo ante bellum" was clear, yet INEC's subsequent action implies either confusion or selective enforcement, raising questions about its consistency in handling intra-party disputes.
This legal tussle is less about constitutional principle and more about control of a political platform ahead of the 2025 general elections. The ADC, once a fringe opposition party, now becomes a contested asset as figures like Mark and Gombe deploy courts to legitimise their factions. The Federal High Court's 4 September 2025 refusal to stop Mark's leadership from operating, followed by the appeal court's reaffirmation of the status quo, shows how litigation is being used to buy time and consolidate power. With Sulaiman Usman arguing that uncertainty could lead to parallel structures, the irony is that the legal battle itself is creating the very chaos it claims to prevent.
Ordinary ADC members and supporters stand to lose the most. As leaders litigate, grassroots mobilisation stalls, funding dries up, and voter trust erodes. Party members in states like Kwara and Benue, where Aregbesola and Mark have strong bases, may find their local structures paralysed by national disarray. The longer the dispute drags on, the more likely it becomes that disaffected members defect to parties with clearer leadership.
This is not an isolated incident. It mirrors patterns seen in the PDP, APC, and LP, where leadership crises are routinely outsourced to courts, turning political parties into legal battlegrounds rather than policy-driven movements. The ADC case underscores how Nigerian politics increasingly favours courtroom strategy over internal democracy, leaving voters with parties that are structurally weakened before campaigns even begin.
