BY FRONTLINE REPORTERS
A Federal High Court in Abuja has adjourned indefinitely a suit challenging the leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) led by former Senate President David Mark.
Justice Emeka Nwite ordered the indefinite adjournment after parties informed the court about a recent Supreme Court judgment linked to the matter and a request by the plaintiff seeking transfer of the case to another judge.
The suit was filed by an aggrieved ADC chieftain, Nafiu Bala Gombe, who is challenging the legitimacy of the current leadership of the party.
Justice Nwite said the adjournment became necessary to allow parties obtain and file the Certified True Copy of the Supreme Court judgment delivered on April 30, 2026, on an interlocutory appeal filed by Mark.
The judge also noted that Bala’s letter requesting transfer of the case to another judge had not been served on the defendants, adding that taking any decision on such a request without hearing from all parties could breach their rights.
Listed as defendants in the suit are the ADC, former Osun State governor Rauf Aregbesola, Ralph Nwosu and the Independent National Electoral Commission.
At the proceedings, plaintiff’s counsel, Luka Haruna, urged the court to await the outcome of the transfer request made to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court.
However, lawyers representing the defendants opposed the request, describing the move as an ambush and insisting that the matter should proceed in line with judicial processes.
Meanwhile, the ADC accused unnamed agents of the Federal Government of attempting to manipulate the judiciary in the leadership dispute.
In a statement issued by the party’s National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, the party alleged that efforts were being made to influence proceedings by seeking reassignment of the case to another judge.
The ADC claimed the development reinforced fears of political interference and forum shopping aimed at frustrating the judicial process.
The party maintained that no litigant had the right to choose a preferred judge simply because proceedings were not going in their favour, insisting that the judiciary must be protected from intimidation and political pressure.
ADVERTISEMENTS
