Fresh controversy has emerged in the leadership crisis rocking the African Democratic Congress (ADC) after the Federal High Court in Abuja on Friday adjourned indefinitely a suit challenging the leadership of former Senate President David Mark.q
Justice Emeka Nwite suspended proceedings in the matter after counsel to the plaintiff, Nafiu Bala Gombe, informed the court that an application had been submitted to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court seeking the reassignment of the case to another judge.
The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025, is challenging the emergence of David Mark and former Osun State governor, Rauf Aregbesola, in the ADC leadership structure.
At the resumed hearing, plaintiff’s counsel, Luka Musa Haruna, disclosed that the Supreme Court had already dismissed an interlocutory appeal earlier filed by Mark against the proceedings.
According to him, the apex court, in its April 30 judgment, also vacated the Court of Appeal’s earlier order staying proceedings in the substantive suit.
“The interlocutory appeal of the second defendant has travelled to the Supreme Court. My Lord, we are glad to inform this honourable court that on the 30th day of April 2026, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment on the interlocutory appeal dismissing the said appeal for lacking in merit,” he said.
Haruna further told the court that the plaintiff had written a letter dated May 4, 2026 to the Chief Judge requesting that the case be transferred to another judge.
He then appealed to Justice Nwite to await the administrative decision on the request before taking further steps in the matter.
“At this juncture, we must humbly pray to your Lordship, to wait for the administrative decision of the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court,” Haruna said.
Lawyers representing the defendants, however, strongly opposed the request, accusing the plaintiff of attempting to delay proceedings despite the order for accelerated hearing already granted by the Court of Appeal and affirmed by the Supreme Court.
Counsel to the first defendant, Realwan Okpanachi, argued that the defence team had not been served with any document relating to the transfer request.
“We have not received any communication regarding that application. My Lord, so as it is, we don’t know the form or the content of that application. Therefore, we take the approach of the plaintiff as an ambush,” he said.
“We also consider it as an attempt to frustrate the order of accelerated hearing granted by the Court of Appeal and upheld by the Supreme Court,” he added.
Counsel for the second defendant, Sulaiman Usman, described the move as “forum shopping and judge shopping.”
“So my Lord, for the plaintiffs to come back to this court, and to inform us today that they have written a private correspondence to the Honourable Chief Judge, and to hinge that to make a request for this court to await the outcome of that private correspondence, is not only unfortunate My Lord, but a dangerous trend which must not be allowed to stand,” he said.
Also opposing the application, counsel for the fifth defendant, P.I. Oyewole, described the request as “strange,” accusing the plaintiff of inviting the Chief Judge “to indulge in judicial rascality.”
Responding to the objections, Haruna maintained that the plaintiff stood by the application seeking reassignment of the case.
In his ruling, Justice Nwite held that the court could not take any action on the letter without hearing all parties involved in the matter.
“Taking a decision or any action in such a letter without hearing from the defendants will amount to breach of their fundamental right in this suit,” the judge ruled.