Federal High Court Adjourns Leadership Dispute within African Democratic Congress
The Federal High Court (FHC) in Abuja has indefinitely adjourned the case initiated by Nafiu Bala Gombe, leader of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), who is challenging the leadership of Senator David Mark. Justice Emeka Nwite announced the postponement on Friday, awaiting a decision from Chief Justice (CJ) John Tsoho regarding Gombe’s request to file a certified true copy (CTC) of a Supreme Court judgment and to transfer the case to another judge.
This adjournment marks the second indefinite postponement of case number FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025. Last month, the court respected a ruling from the Supreme Court concerning an interlocutory appeal filed by David Mark, who serves as the second defendant in the case.
Recently, a five-member Supreme Court panel dismissed Mark’s appeal, lifting the appellate court’s suspension of the status quo order and directing the case back to the trial court. During Friday’s hearing, Gombe’s attorney, Luka Musa Haruna, informed Justice Nwite about the developments in the Supreme Court, noting that a formal request had been submitted to transfer the case.
Haruna stated that the request, dated May 4, 2026, has already been delivered to the court registrar, and he urged Justice Nwite to await the Chief Justice’s administrative decision. He expressed, “At this point, we must humbly pray to His Excellency to await the administrative decision of the Chief Justice of the Federal High Court.”
The defendants responded with frustration, alleging that the plaintiffs were attempting to obstruct a prompt trial ordered by the Court of Appeals and upheld by the Supreme Court. Realwan Okpanachi, representing the first defendant Shuaib Arwa, challenged the portrayal of the Supreme Court’s decision by the plaintiffs, asserting that it had partially approved the appeal while requiring the acceleration of case proceedings.
Okpanachi criticized the plaintiffs for purportedly ambushing the defendants with a request to transfer the case and argued that such actions should not allow litigants to dictate which court or judge decides their case. He called for adherence to the court’s prior ruling, which had postponed the case until the CTC of the Supreme Court’s judgment is submitted.
Sulaiman Usman, counsel for the second defendant, condemned the plaintiffs’ actions as “forum shopping and judge shopping,” reiterating the Supreme Court’s commendation of Justice Nwite for his management of the case. He cautioned that the plaintiffs’ attempt to influence the court with a letter was not just improper but also dangerous.
Additional voices from the defense echoed similar sentiments. ME Sherif, representing the third defendant, contended that substantive requests cannot be adequately made through a mere letter, while Mr. PI Oyewole, counsel for the fifth defendant, labeled the application as bizarre, accusing the petitioner of attempting to compel the judge to engage in what he called judicial brutality.
In response, Haruna accused the defense of attacking a letter they had not seen, reaffirming that the plaintiffs would support the request for transfer. Justice Nwite determined that the court could not rule on the transfer request without hearing all parties involved, emphasizing that any actions taken on the letter would infringe on the defendants’ rights.
Justice Nwite ruled that the matter would be adjourned, allowing parties to file a certified copy of the Supreme Court’s judgment, serve the defendants with the petitioner’s letter, and await further instructions from the Chief Justice. Gombe has sought an order barring Mark’s leadership from claiming authority over the ADC while the legitimacy of his leadership is under contest. Furthermore, Gombe requested restraining orders against the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognizing Mark’s tenure.
In earlier proceedings, Justice Nwite mandated Gombe to notify the defendants to appear and justify why his application should not be granted. However, rather than respond to the trial court’s order, the defendants opted to appeal to the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal, questioning the trial court’s jurisdiction over what they deemed an internal ADC matter. The Appeal Court dismissed this application for lack of merit, urging a swift resolution and calling for calm among all parties.
In a subsequent turn of events, Mark’s appeal to the Court of Appeal was also dismissed, and the case was remanded back to the trial court, further complicating the ongoing leadership dispute within the ADC.
