Court fixes April 14 for hearing in ADC leadership dispute

The Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed April 14 for the hearing of a suit challenging the leadership of the African Democratic Congress led by former Senate President, David Mark.

The suit, filed by Nafiu Bala Gombe, is seeking to stop Mark and other party leaders from parading themselves as executives of the party.

Justice Emeka Nwite fixed the date on Friday after hearing notices were issued to all parties in the case.

The case, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025, has the ADC, Mark, former Interior Minister Rauf Aregbesola, the Independent National Electoral Commission, and former ADC Chairman, Ralph Nwosu, listed as defendants.

The matter had earlier been adjourned indefinitely pending the outcome of an appeal challenging an earlier court order.

However, the Court of Appeal, in a judgment delivered on March 12, directed parties to return to the trial court and maintain the status quo pending the determination of the substantive suit.

ADVERTISEMENT

Following the appellate court’s decision, INEC reportedly removed the names of Mark and Aregbesola from its portal as the party’s National Chairman and National Secretary.

In response, the Mark-led faction filed a motion on April 7 seeking an order compelling INEC to restore their names on its portal.

They also asked the court for accelerated hearing of the case.

Meanwhile, Mark and Aregbesola have filed preliminary objections asking the court to dismiss the suit for lack of jurisdiction.

Mark, in his objection, argued that Gombe lacked locus standi to institute the case, claiming he had resigned his position as Deputy National Chairman of the party.

He also argued that the suit bordered on internal party affairs, which he said were non-justiciable.

Aregbesola, in a counter-affidavit, also urged the court to dismiss the suit, describing it as unmeritorious.

He asked the court to award N50 million in costs against the plaintiff for what he called a frivolous suit.

Nwosu also challenged the suit, arguing that it was premature and that internal dispute mechanisms of the party were not exhausted before approaching the court.