NJC asked to probe controversial court ruling sacking David Mark’s ADC leadership

Two pro-democracy organisations, the Coalition Against Corruption and Bad Governance and the Campaign for Democracy and Justice, have called on the National Judicial Council to investigate the circumstances surrounding the Federal High Court judgment that sacked the David Mark-led leadership of the African Democratic Congress, alleging that the ruling conflicts with an earlier judgment by a court of equal jurisdiction.

The request was contained in a joint statement dated November 6, 2026, and signed by Kolawole Bello, Acting Secretary of CDJ, and Toyin Raheem, Chairman of CACOBAG, ValidViewNetwork reports .

THE ALLEGATION

The groups argued that the judgment delivered by Justice Peter Lifu on November 5, 2026, in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025, contradicted an earlier ruling by Justice Musa Liman of the same court on July 2, 2026, in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1637/2025.

According to the groups, Justice Liman had affirmed the legitimacy of the David Mark-led National Working Committee, dismissed the challenge against its leadership on grounds of jurisdiction, locus standi, and failure to exhaust internal party remedies, and directed INEC to recognise the leadership.

They maintained that the earlier judgment remained subsisting and had not been overturned by either the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court.”How then could Hon.

Justice Peter Lifu, a judge of equal powers, on 5th November, 2026, turn himself into a Court of Appeal and upturn the judgement of Hon. Justice Musa Liman?

This is an invitation to judicial anarchy,” the statement read.

THE LEGAL ARGUMENT

The organisations argued that a judge of the Federal High Court could not sit on appeal over a decision delivered by another judge of the same court.

They cited previous Supreme Court decisions, including Madukolu v. Nkemdilim, Odi v. Osafile, Skenconsult v. Ukey, and CBN v. Ahmed, to support their position that courts of coordinate jurisdiction cannot overrule one another.

They also invoked the principles of stare decisis, res judicata, and issue estoppel, arguing that the filing of another suit over an already determined dispute amounted to an abuse of court process.

THE WARNING

The groups warned that allowing conflicting judgments from courts of equal jurisdiction to stand could weaken public confidence in the judiciary and create uncertainty within Nigeria’s political system.

“If this is allowed, what stops another judge of the Federal High Court tomorrow from sacking the APC leadership? This conflicting judgement, if not reversed, will set Nigeria on fire,” they said.

They also accused some political office holders of acting in ways that could undermine democratic pluralism, warning against the use of judicial processes to frustrate opposition parties and political contenders.

THE DEMANDS

The groups called on the National Judicial Council, under the leadership of Chief Justice of Nigeria Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, to investigate the conflicting judgments and examine what they described as a dangerous pattern .

They also recalled the contributions of pro-democracy activists, including Gani Fawehinmi, Balarabe Musa, Tunji Braithwaite, MKO Abiola, Ayo Adebanjo, and Yinka Odumakin, who fought for multi-party democracy in Nigeria.

WHY IT MATTERS

The conflicting judgments on the ADC leadership have exposed a dangerous fault line in Nigeria’s judiciary.If two judges of the same court can issue contradictory rulings on the same matter, what does that say about the certainty of the law?

If a ruling can be undone by filing a fresh suit before another judge, what does that say about the finality of judicial decisions?

ADVERTISEMENT

For the ADC, the ruling has nullified Atiku Abubakar’s presidential candidacy and thrown the party into chaos. For the judiciary, it has raised questions about discipline and consistency. For Nigeria’s democracy, it is a warning sign.

The NJC has been asked to intervene. Whether it will act, and how quickly, remains to be seen. But for now, the law is not settled. And in politics, an unsettled law is a dangerous thing. ValidViewNetwork reports.