Latest News

Federal High Court Adjourns Leadership Tussle Case In ADC Indefinitely

David Mark ADC Chairman

Despite opposition by defence lawyers, the Federal High Court in Abuja on Friday adjourned indefinitely the suit challenging the leadership structure of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) involving former Senate President, David Mark, and former Osun State governor, Rauf Aregbesola.

 

Justice Emeka Nwite postponed the matter after the plaintiff, ADC chieftain Nafiu Bala Gombe, informed the court that he had applied to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court for the transfer of the case to another judge.

 

The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025, has deepened the leadership crisis within the ADC following the emergence of Mark and Aregbesola in the party’s leadership arrangement.

 

At the resumed hearing, counsel to the plaintiff, Luka Musa Haruna, told the court that the Supreme Court had on April 30 dismissed an interlocutory appeal filed by Mark against the proceedings.

 

According to him, the apex court also vacated the earlier order of the Court of Appeal staying proceedings in the substantive matter.

 

“My Lord, we are glad to inform this honourable court that on the 30th day of April 2026, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment on the interlocutory appeal dismissing the said appeal for lacking in merit,” Haruna said.

 

The lawyer, however, disclosed that the plaintiff had written to the Chief Judge on May 4 requesting that the matter be reassigned to another judge.

 

He urged the court to await the administrative decision of the Chief Judge before taking further steps in the case.

 

The request was strongly opposed by lawyers representing the defendants, who accused the plaintiff of attempting to delay the accelerated hearing earlier ordered by the Court of Appeal and affirmed by the Supreme Court.

 

Counsel to the first defendant, Realwan Okpanachi, argued that the defence had not been served with the application seeking transfer of the matter.

 

“We have not received any communication regarding that application. Therefore, we take the approach of the plaintiff as an ambush.”

 

He further described the move as an attempt to frustrate the speedy hearing of the case.