Three dramatic developments in the African Democratic Congress leadership crisis converged on Tuesday the Federal High Court adjourning Nafiu Bala Gombe’s suit indefinitely after the presiding judge declared it would be “judicial rascality” to proceed while the Supreme Court is seized of the matter, the Supreme Court itself ordering an accelerated hearing with a 24-hour filing deadline for legal processes and a hearing date of April 22, and the David Mark-led faction holding its national convention at which it expelled Gombe for what it described as “anti-party activities.”
The confluence of events marks potentially the most consequential day in the ADC’s crisis since it began in September 2025, with the Supreme Court’s accelerated timeline raising the possibility that the leadership dispute could be definitively resolved within days — even as the Mark faction’s decision to hold a convention and expel its rival deepens the factional divide.
At the Federal High Court, Justice Emeka Nwite the judge before whom Gombe originally filed his suit in September 2025 adjourned the matter sine die (indefinitely) after learning that an interlocutory appeal arising from the case is now pending before the Supreme Court.
Gombe’s counsel, Lukman Fagbemi, informed the court that the appeal was pending at the apex court and asked for an adjournment until the Supreme Court determines the matter.
In a notable exchange, counsel for the ADC, Shuaibu Aruwa SAN, and counsel for Mark, Sulaiman Usman SAN, argued that the trial court could proceed with the substantive suit while the Supreme Court considered the appeal, delivering judgment only after the apex court ruled.
Usman proposed what he called “the best time management strategy” clearing all pending applications, hearing the substantive matter, and then awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision before delivering judgment.
However, Justice Nwite rejected this approach, ruling that the proper course was to await the Supreme Court’s determination.
“I am of the view, and I so hold, that it would not serve any purpose if the jurisdiction of this honourable court is being challenged at the apex court,” the judge stated.
“Therefore, the reasonable thing to do is to await the decision of the supreme court. It is my view, and I so hold, that the interest of justice will be met by awaiting the outcome of the decision of the supreme court,” Justice Nwite stated.
He then delivered the line that captured the day’s proceedings: “Indeed, it will be judicial rascality for this court to struggle with the issue of jurisdiction with the supreme court.”
The indefinite adjournment effectively suspends Gombe’s suit the original case that triggered the entire leadership crisis until the Supreme Court determines the appeal.
At the Supreme Court, a five-member panel led by Justice Mohammed Garba took decisive action to accelerate the resolution of the ADC crisis, imposing one of the tightest timelines seen in recent political litigation.
The court ordered the Mark-led faction the appellants to file and serve all legal processes on all respondents within 24 hours.
The appellants then have one day to reply to the respondents’ responses.
The appellants then have one day to reply to the respondents’ responses.
All filing and exchange of briefs must be completed before April 20.
The hearing was fixed for April 22.
This compressed timeline means the Supreme Court could potentially deliver a ruling on the ADC leadership crisis by late April a speed that reflects the court’s recognition of the time-sensitive nature of the dispute, with party primaries scheduled to begin on April 23.
In a significant procedural development, Jubril Okutepa SAN counsel to the Mark-led executives withdrew a motion earlier filed seeking to stay the execution of the Court of Appeal’s March 12 judgment that ordered the party to maintain the status quo ante bellum.
Okutepa explained that the motion was no longer needed since the apex court had expedited the hearing of the substantive appeal. With the accelerated timeline, seeking a stay of the lower court’s judgment became unnecessary — the Supreme Court would hear the substantive appeal before any stay order could take practical effect.