Representatives of the David Mark faction of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) yesterday met in Abuja with the leadership of the Peoples Redemption Party (PRP) as the group continued to explore options in the face of mounting opposition to its stay in the ADC.
The ADC delegation led by Mark met with the new PRP national Chairman Hakeem Baba-Ahmed,48 hours after a similar meeting between the ADC faction and the Tanimu Turaki faction of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja will on Monday, determine whether the Mark-led National Executive Committee of the ADC is legally constituted.
Contesting the legality of the ADC factional leadership is the party’s only member of the House of Representatives, Leke Abejide.
Abejide (Yagba,Kogi State) wants the court to sack David Mark and other members of the NEC.
Details of yesterday’s meeting were not disclosed but sources said the ADC delegation might be responding to a recent plea by Baba-Ahmed for opposition figures to join its ranks and form a united front.
With Mark at the meeting were the ADC spokesman, Bolaji Abdullahi, and Salihu Lukman, while PRP spokesman Muhammed Ishaq joined the PRP chair as the party’s representatives.
Justice Musa Liman announced the judgement date yesterday after entertaining final arguments from lawyers to parties in the suit.
The suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1637/2025 has the ADC, Ralph Nwosu, Mark, Rauf Aregbesola (National Secretary) and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as defendants.
Abejide, in the suit, contends that the process through which Nwosu (ADC’s former National Chairman) transferred the leadership of the party to Mark and Aregbesola violated the party’s constitution.
He therefore wants the court to, among other things , declare that Nwosu’s action on July 2, 2025 at the Shehu Musa Yar’adua Centre, Abuja, in handing over the leadership, administration and control of the party to Mark and Aregbesola, without the authorization or approval of a validly constituted National Executive Committee or the National Convention of the party is illegal and unlawful by virtue of the provisions of Article 19 (14) of the ADC’s 2022 constitution.
He is also praying the court for an order nullifying Nwosu’s hand-over or transfer of the leadership of the ADC to Mark and Aregbesola as Interim National Chairman and Interim National Secretary on July 2, 2025 at the Shehu Musa Yar’adua Centre, Abuja, for being illegal, unlawful, null and void.
The plaintiff is seeking an order of perpetual injunction to stop Mark and Aregbesola from parading, acting or holding themselves out as the Interim National Chairman and Interim National Secretary of the ADC as their purported appointment, selection or election was unlawful, illegal, null and void.
He equally wants the court to issue an order of perpetual injunction restraining INEC from recognizing Mark and Aregbesola as the Interim National Chairman and Interim National Secretary of the ADC on the grounds that their appointment, selection or election did not meet the requirements of Section 82 of the Electoral Act, 2022.
While arguing his client’s case yesterday, plaintiff’s lawyer, Ibrahim Idris (SAN) urged the court to reject the objections raised by the defendants and grant the reliefs sought by the plaintiff.
Idris argued among others, that the process leading to the emergence of Mark and Aregbesola as leaders of the ADC was flawed as the relevant provisions of the party’s constitution and the Electoral Act were not complied with.
He further argued that the waiver granted Mark and Aregbesola, with the purported alteration of
Article 9, paragraph (3(4) of the party’s constitution was inchoate and the party failed to register the altered constitution with INEC within 30 days as mandated by the Nigerian Constitution.
Idris similarly faulted the purported suspension of Article 23(4) of the party’s constitution to pave the way for Mark and Aregbesola to contest the party’s offices, arguing that no provision of the ADC’s constitution allows any organ of the party to suspend any portion of its constitution.
Lawyer to the ADC, Shaibu Aruwa (SAN) urged the court to dismiss the suit because issues raised in it relate purely to the internal affairs of the political party.
Aruwa argued that no matter how the plaintiff tried to embellish his case, it revolves around the leadership and management structure of the political party, which are internal to the party and over which the court lacked jurisdiction.
He faulted the plaintiff’s claim that the alteration of the party’s constitution was incomplete and that the change of its leadership was effected on July 2, 2025 at the Shehu Musa Yar’adua Centre.
Lawyers to the other defendants – P. I. Oyewole for Nwosu, Realwan Okpanachi for Mark, I R. Abdullahi for Aregbesola and Anthony Onyeri for INEC – made similar arguments and prayed the court to dismiss the suit.
Nafiu-Bala Gombe’s suit on ADC for hearing Tuesday
Hearing in a separate suit on the ADC leadership has been scheduled for Tuesday, April 14 before Justice Emeka Nwite, also of the Federal High Court in Abuja.
The suit was filed by Nafiu-Bala Gombe who is laying claim to the ADC leadership.
Like Abejide, Nafiu-Bala is seeking, among others, the sack of the Mark-led leadership of the ADC.
It was learnt that hearing notices have been sent to parties informing them about the new development.
Defendants in the suit are Mark, Aregbesola, INEC and Ralph Nwosu,the immediate past national chairman of the party.
The judge had on the last date, adjourned further proceedings indefinitely pending the outcome of an appeal filed in the case by Mark.
On March 12, the Appeal Court dismissed the appeal and ordered parties to return to the trial court for accelerated hearing of the substantive suit.
It equally ordered the maintenance of status quo ante bellum pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.
Acting on the appellate court’s judgment, INEC, on April 1, removed the names of Mark and Aregbesola from its official portal and website as ADC’s National Chairman and National Secretary.
Mark on April 7 filed motion on notice, praying the court to among others, order INEC to reverse its decision derecognising them as leaders of the party.
Nafiu Bala: ADC will peg candidates’ age at 55
Speaking on the Hausa Service of the BBC yesterday, Nafiu Bala, said the party under his leadership would not field anyone above 55 years of age as candidates for election.
The move, according to him, is to give younger Nigerians an opportunity to lead.
“We are giving the youth their rightful chance to lead,” he said.
Continuing, he said:“It is time to show these elders, some of whom are between 75 and 90 years old, that the era of the youth has arrived.”
On the leadership crisis in the party ,he said people who are not registered members of the party are now parading themselves as leaders.
His words: “It is necessary for us to speak out. People who are not even members of our party are claiming leadership.
“Article 9 of our constitution clearly outlines the procedure for becoming a registered member of the ADC.
“One cannot simply receive a membership card at an event and be declared leader. Such an act is a direct violation of our constitutional process. Officially, these individuals are not members of our party because they did not follow due process.”
Asked about his presence at the July 2, 2025 unveiling of the interim leadership of David Mark and Rauf Aregbesola, Nafiu-Bala said it was “not with the intention of endorsing David Mark as our leader.”
He added: “My purpose was to support those adopting the ADC as the platform they would join to challenge the current administration.
“The post I made on social media was simply to welcome them and express my willingness to collaborate.”
No sign of preparation for ‘national convention’
Despite threat by the Mark faction of the ADC to defy INEC and press ahead with its April 14th National Convention in Abuja, there was no evidence yesterday that the event would take place in the federal capital on Tuesday.
The faction had dismissed INEC’s de-recognition of the leadership of the party as illegal and vowed to proceed with plan for the national convention.
It subsequently set up various committees to coordinate the event.
However, there was no further evidence of preparation as at yesterday.
Spokesman for the faction Bolaji Abdullahi did not respond to telephone calls and messages on the issue.
State congresses which are supposed to precede the national convention are stalled in many of the states, caused by struggle for control of party structure.
In Sokoto State ,for example,ADC Secretary Yusuf Alkali on Wednesday announced the suspension of the congress in the state citing INEC directive.
“We have written INEC and the police accordingly. The electoral body acknowledged and commended us for complying with the directives,” he said in a statement.
But 24 hours later, Bello Isyaka said congresses were successfully conducted across the 244 wards in the state.
Oyegun, Owie intensify fight over control of Edo ADC
In Edo State, the ADC faction loyal to Senator Roland Owie elected Dr. Mike Ehima as new State Chairman of the party.
Those loyal to National Leader of the party, Chief John Odigie-Oyegun, stayed away from the congress.
Senator Owie, a member of the ADC National Executive Council (NEC), told journalists in Benin City that the chairmanship of the Edo ADC was zoned to Edo South.
Owie said a mini primary was conducted between Dr. Mike Ehima and Tony Alile after two of them indicated interests for the chairmanship position.
He said Dr. Ehima scored 75 votes while his opponent polled 4 votes.
Senator Owie said he received information that Chief Odigie-Oyegun has adopted another chairman in place of Dr. Ehima at the ADC’s National office of the party at Abuja.
Senator Owie said the recently conducted Local Government Congresses was peaceful and unanimous.
“Oyegun cannot be a National Leader and Senatorial Leader, he should choose one”, Owie said and called on the NEC of the ADC to call Oyegun to order, adding “Oyegun should stop playing games.
“I don’t know where he got that from, it is between him and Abuja, I don’t know anything about that.
“And you know he is a member of another ADC in Abuja. May be that is where he got that from”.
In his reaction, Chief Oyegun said, “I am not the State Congress officer appointed by the national headquarters, Abuja, to oversee the congress. It is only the congress officer that can speak on that, maybe he will speak tomorrow.
But Mr. Kennedy Odion said he remained State Chairman of Edo ADC.
He insisted that Edo ADC Local Government Congresses were a sham.
NBA warns judges, lawyers against being used to undermine nation’s democracy
The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) yesterday asked judges and lawyers to resist being used to undermine the nation’s democratic process.
The NBA, in a statement issued by its president, Afam Osigwe (SAN) expressed concern about a growing practice where judges and lawyers act in contravention of the Electoral Act 2026, a development it claimed, threatens the nation’s democracy.
The association said it has closely monitored recent political and legal developments as the nation gradually approaches the 2027 General Elections.
It said the developments, particularly those arising from the interpretation and potential application of provisions of the Electoral Act 2026, raise serious constitutional, democratic, and rule-of-law concerns that require immediate intervention.
The NBA deprecates what it described as the disturbing involvement by lawyers and courts in the internal affairs of political parties despite the clear provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026.
The NBA noted that even where the Electoral Act, in Section 83 precludes courts from jurisdiction over any case pertaining to the internal affairs of a political party, some courts have continued to do so.
It added: “What we now see are situations where actions are not only instituted in courts by lawyers in clear violation of the Act, but courts purportedly grant interim and/or interlocutory injunctions in clear contempt of statutory provisions of the law.
“This does not augur well for our democracy. Democracy will not thrive in a situation where lawyers and courts take actions and decisions that not only negate our laws, but also do violence to them.
“This emerging trend of subverting the clear letters of the Electoral Act and dragging courts into the internal affairs of political parties through disingenuous litigation, forum shopping, and malafide applications designed to secure undemocratic political advantage, bodes no good for our democracy.
“Such practices, if not immediately curbed, would directly contradict the clear intendment of the Electoral Act and risk transforming the judicial processes into avenues for political score-settling or electoral manipulation.
“We must reiterate that these provisions were clearly designed to curb abuse of court processes and discourage forum shopping in political disputes.
“This is therefore why the NBA is concerned that the abuse, misapplication, or selective deployment of these provisions may create opportunities for manipulation capable of undermining democratic competition and shrinking the political space.
“Members of the Bar are reminded that they are ministers in the temple of justice and not political agents seeking judicial endorsement of partisan objectives.
“The filing of actions intended to draw courts into internal political party disputes, particularly where jurisdiction is expressly excluded, constitutes an abuse of court process and a violation of professional responsibility.”
The NBA, while threatening to take firm steps to deter such conduct, warned that lawyers, who deliberately file actions aimed at procuring judicial interference in intra-party affairs, or who seek ex-parte or interlocutory orders in clear violation of statutory provisions, risk facing disciplinary proceedings.
It added: “We will not hesitate to present petitions before the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) against any legal practitioner found to be engaging in such conduct. This will be pursued decisively to serve as a deterrent and to preserve the sanctity of the judicial process.”
It urged the Judiciary to stay vigilant and resist being drawn into political theatrics, adding that “courts should firmly decline invitations, no matter how artfully crafted, to intervene in matters the law explicitly bars them from.
“When statutes limit judicial meddling in party affairs, judges must show restraint, adhere to the law, and focus on cases properly before them.
The association urged the National Judicial Council (NJC) to make regulations that will sanction any judge, “who knowingly assumes jurisdiction in matters clearly barred by law, grants orders in respect of intra-party disputes in violation of statutory provisions, or lends the authority of the court to partisan political maneuvering.
“The NBA will not shy away from drawing the NJC’s attention to the actions of any judicial officer found to have acted in a manner inconsistent with the judicial oath, constitutional responsibilities, and the preservation of public confidence in the courts.
“The NBA will not hesitate to activate its constitutional responsibility to protect the integrity of the justice system.”
The association equally urged the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to exercise its expanded supervisory powers with utmost neutrality, independence, and fidelity to democratic values.
It argued that INEC must not, under any circumstances, be seen as a participant in political engineering or as an institution whose regulatory authority is deployed in a manner that weakens political pluralism.
The NBA added: “The Chairman of INEC, being a distinguished Professor of Law and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, is uniquely positioned to appreciate the constitutional implications of these developments.
“The NBA expects that the commission, under his leadership, will ensure that its actions reflect independence, fairness, and strict adherence to democratic norms.
“The Bar is closely watching the conduct of the commission and expects that its regulatory role will strengthen, not diminish, confidence in Nigeria’s democratic process.
“The Bar will deploy all lawful mechanisms, engagement, advisory opinions, strategic litigation, and disciplinary processes, to ensure that lawyers do not weaponize the legal process so that the Judiciary is not misused.
“Lawyers must remain officers of the court, not architects of procedural manipulation. Nigeria’s democracy must not be weakened by legal maneuvering, institutional capture, or the misuse of judicial authority.
“The courts must remain arbiters of justice, not instruments of political advantage. Electoral institutions must remain neutral umpires, not participants in political contests. The electoral institutions must operate within the bounds of constitutional democracy.”
