The African Democratic Congress (ADC) confronts a decisive moment today, with the Supreme Court set to rule on its leadership tussle, against the backdrop of a Federal High Court judgment that has already barred disputed congresses and reinforced the authority of elected state executives.
The apex court is set to deliver judgment in a case that centres on rival claims to the party’s national leadership by factions aligned with former Senate President David Mark and contender Nafiu Bala Gombe.
The Guardian learnt that the court notified the parties yesterday of the date fixed for judgment.
The court fixed 2:00 p.m. for the ruling, which political stakeholders and legal observers say could determine the stability of the party’s internal structure ahead of the next electoral cycle
The appeal, marked SC/CV/180/2026, arose from conflicting decisions of the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal on who should be recognised as the authentic leadership of the opposition party.
Senior lawyer Shaibu Aruwa had earlier written to the Chief Justice of Nigeria, urging the apex court to expedite judgment. In a letter dated April 22, 2026, the counsel to the party warned that delay could expose the ADC to what he described as a “grave and irreversible risk” of exclusion from the polls.
The appeal involving Mark and Bala Gombe, alongside four others, was heard on April 22, with judgment reserved.
According to the letter, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), acting on an earlier Court of Appeal ruling, had moved to de-recognise the ADC leadership, leaving the party without a recognised structure.
Aruwa said the development had created a constitutional and political crisis capable of undermining the party’s preparations for the 2027 elections.
“My Lord, the ADC’s ability to comply with these statutory requirements to participate in the 2027 General Elections is wholly dependent on the timely delivery of the judgment in the instant appeal,” the letter stated.
He added that unless judgment is delivered promptly, millions of Nigerians aligned with the party risk disenfranchisement.
“This would deny them their constitutional right to freely associate and contest elections through a political party of their choice,” he said.
Court bars INEC from ADC caretaker congresses, restrains Mark, affirms state executives’ tenure
TODAY’S anticipated Supreme Court verdict follows Justice Joyce Abdulmalik’s ruling, which barred the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising or participating in any congress organised by a disputed caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress.
Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court, Abuja, also restrained former Senate President David Mark and other party figures from interfering with the functions and tenure of elected state executives.
The ruling followed an originating summons filed by Norman Obinna and six others on behalf of ADC state chairpersons and executive committees.
They challenged the legality of actions taken by a caretaker or interim national leadership.
The plaintiffs argued that the caretaker body lacked the constitutional authority to organise state congresses or appoint committees for that purpose. They asked the court to affirm their tenure and stop any parallel process.
In her judgment, Justice Abdulmalik noted that she found “the issue in the originating summons meritorious”.
She said the germane issue was whether the second to sixth defendants, including Mark, had constitutional or statutory authority to assume the powers of an elected state organ of the ADC, whose tenure is constitutionally guaranteed.
According to her, Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution provides that political parties shall conduct periodic elections on a democratic basis, while Article 23 of the party’s constitution provides that national and state officers shall hold office for a maximum of two terms of eight years.
Abdulmalik therefore said that “the question is whether there is any infraction committed by Mark and co-defendants when they convened meetings and appointed a body known as a congress committee to organise state congresses.”
On the issue of the internal affairs of political parties raised by the defendants, she noted that “the law is settled that courts will not interfere. However, where there is an allegation of breach of constitutional or statutory provisions, the court has a duty to intervene.”
“Where a party alleges that its constitution has been violated, the court is bound to adjudicate. Any argument that this court lacks jurisdiction on that basis fails,” she ruled.
She held that political parties must comply strictly with their constitutions and that courts can intervene where there is a breach of constitutional or statutory provisions.
She found that the procedure adopted by the defendants, including the appointment of a “congress committee”, is not recognised by the party’s constitution.
The judge ruled that the tenure of state executive committees remains valid and must be allowed to run its course. She said only those elected structures have the authority to organise state congresses.
The court set aside the committee’s appointment and restrained INEC from recognising any congress organised by it.
The court also restrained Mark and other defendants from organising congresses or conventions outside the provisions of the party’s constitution.
The judge further restrained them from taking steps that could undermine or disrupt the authority of the state executive committees.
The suit was instituted by way of originating summons by the plaintiffs, led by Obinna and six others. They sued on behalf of state chairmen and executive committees of the ADC.
The defendants include the ADC, David Mark, Patricia Akwashiki, Bolaji Abdullahi, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, Oserheimen Osunbor, and INEC.
The plaintiffs challenged the legality of caretaker or interim national working committees and urged the court to restrain INEC from recognising or participating in any congress organised by the caretaker committee.
The plaintiffs contended that, under the party’s constitution and the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the tenure of state executive committees subsists until valid congresses are conducted, and that any attempt to bypass them undermines internal party democracy.
However, the defendants, in preliminary objections, counter-affidavits and written addresses, urged the court to dismiss the suit.
Mark and others argued that the matter relates to the internal affairs of a political party, is not justiciable, that the plaintiffs lack locus standi, and that the suit is incompetent.
Before delivering judgment, the court also ruled on the preliminary objections and counter-affidavits filed by the defendants.
On jurisdiction, Justice Abdulmalik held that “the subject matter of the plaintiffs’ action pertains to the affairs of INEC,” and therefore falls within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court under Section 251 of the Constitution.
On the argument that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust internal dispute resolution mechanisms, the judge declined to uphold the objection at that stage. She held that determining that issue would amount to deciding substantive questions prematurely.
On locus standi, she held that “the plaintiffs’ locus standi and capacity emanate from the alleged violation” and that they share a common grievance, making the representative action proper.
Consequently, she held that the objections lacked merit and were resolved in favour of the plaintiffs.
