The Supreme Court of Nigeria has reserved judgment in the appeal filed by the National Chairman of the African Democratic Congress, Senator David Mark, challenging the jurisdiction of courts to intervene in the internal affairs of the party, after a five-member panel led by Justice Mohammed Garba heard arguments from all parties and retired to consider its verdict.
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/TheNigerialawyer-WhatsApp-Channel1.jpg")
The apex court did not indicate when judgment would be delivered, stating only that the date would be communicated to parties, a development that leaves the ADC in continued legal limbo as the party primaries window opens on Wednesday, April 23, just one day after the hearing.
The hearing, which had been granted accelerated status with compressed filing timelines, saw Mark’s legal team led by Jibril Okutepa SAN argue that the dispute is a non-justiciable internal party matter that no court has jurisdiction to entertain, while Nafiu Bala Gombe’s counsel Robert Emukpero SAN urged the court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the lower court’s decision.
Notably, INEC did not file any process to either support or counter the appeal, maintaining its position of neutrality while awaiting the court’s determination.
Adopting his brief of argument before the five-member panel, Okutepa SAN submitted that the Supreme Court itself had already settled the issue in a judgment delivered on March 21, 2025, when it held that “no court has jurisdiction to entertain cases bordering on internal affairs of political parties.”
He urged the apex court to apply its own precedent, allow the appeal, and hold that the Federal High Court in Abuja lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by Gombe challenging the ADC’s leadership.
Okutepa’s argument is rooted in Section 83(5) of the Electoral Act 2026, which explicitly bars courts from entertaining jurisdiction over suits pertaining to the internal affairs of political parties. This provision, combined with the Supreme Court’s own March 2025 judgment, forms the cornerstone of the Mark faction’s legal position that the Gombe suit should never have been entertained by any court.
Mark sought several reliefs from the apex court. He asked for the Court of Appeal’s March 12 judgment to be set aside, arguing the appellate court exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering the maintenance of the status quo ante bellum. He sought an order restraining INEC from recognising anyone other than him and the current national officers pending the determination of the appeal. He requested orders barring INEC from altering the party’s leadership structure as currently constituted. And he sought a stay of proceedings in Gombe’s suit before Justice Nwite at the Federal High Court.
Emukpero SAN, representing Gombe as the first respondent, urged the Supreme Court to reject the appeal and affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
His argument focused on the procedural basis of the appellate court’s decision rather than the substantive jurisdictional question. The Court of Appeal had dismissed Mark’s appeal on the grounds that it was “not only premature but was brought without leave of the trial court,” a procedural deficiency that the appellate court held was fatal to the appeal regardless of its merits.
Emukpero urged the apex court to uphold this finding and affirm the Court of Appeal’s direction that the matter be returned to the trial court for expeditious hearing.
All other respondents, apart from INEC, aligned with Gombe’s position and urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the appeal for want of merit, maintaining that the trial court was properly seized of the facts of the case that remained pending before it.
INEC’s decision not to file any process in the appeal is significant. As the fourth respondent in the case, the electoral commission chose neither to support Mark’s argument that courts lack jurisdiction over internal party affairs nor to support Gombe’s argument that the trial court was properly seized of the matter.
The neutrality is consistent with INEC’s stated position that it will not recognise any of the warring factions until the legal dispute is judicially determined. By not taking sides in the Supreme Court appeal, INEC preserves its ability to implement whatever ruling the apex court delivers without being seen to have advocated for a particular outcome.
However, INEC’s actions on the ground have not been neutral in effect. The commission removed Mark and Aregbesola from its portal on April 1, citing the Court of Appeal’s judgment. It refused to monitor the April 14 convention. And it has stated it will not engage with any faction pending a final judicial determination.
The Mark faction has asked the Supreme Court to nullify these actions. Whether the court addresses INEC’s conduct in its judgment, or confines itself to the jurisdictional question, remains to be seen.
The appeal before the Supreme Court is the culmination of a legal journey that has traversed all three tiers of the Nigerian judiciary in just over seven months.
On September 2, 2025, Gombe filed suit at the Federal High Court in Abuja, seeking to restrain INEC from recognising the Mark-led executives and to be recognised as acting national chairman. He maintained he never resigned his position as deputy national chairman and should have assumed leadership following Ralph Nwosu’s exit.
On September 4, 2025, Justice Nwite heard an ex parte application by Gombe but refused to grant the injunctive reliefs sought, instead directing respondents to show cause.
Dissatisfied with aspects of the ruling, Mark filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal challenging the Federal High Court’s jurisdiction.
On March 12, 2026, the Court of Appeal dismissed Mark’s appeal as premature and brought without leave of the trial court. The appellate court directed parties to return to the trial court for expeditious hearing and ordered the maintenance of the status quo ante bellum.
Mark then approached the Supreme Court with the current appeal, challenging both the Court of Appeal’s ruling and seeking a stay of the status quo order.
Rather than hearing the various motions filed in the appeal separately, the apex court took the expedited approach of directing parties to file their briefs and hearing the substantive appeal directly, reflecting the urgency of the matter.
On April 14, Justice Nwite adjourned Gombe’s suit at the Federal High Court indefinitely, declaring it would be “judicial rascality” to proceed while the Supreme Court was seized of the related issue.
The Supreme Court’s reserved judgment will need to address two distinct but related questions.
The first is procedural: was the Court of Appeal correct in dismissing Mark’s appeal as premature and brought without leave of the trial court? If the apex court agrees with this procedural finding, the appeal could be dismissed on that basis alone, without the court needing to address the substantive jurisdictional question.
The second is substantive: do courts have jurisdiction to entertain suits bordering on the internal affairs of political parties? Okutepa SAN has argued that the Supreme Court’s own March 21, 2025, judgment definitively answers this question in the negative. If the apex court reaches this issue and agrees, it could effectively end not only Gombe’s suit but potentially all of the ADC-related litigation across multiple courts.
The tension between these two questions is significant. If the court dismisses on procedural grounds, the substantive jurisdictional question remains unresolved, and Gombe’s suit could resume at the trial court once the procedural deficiency is addressed. If the court rules on the substantive question, it could provide definitive guidance on whether any court in Nigeria can entertain internal political party disputes.
The Supreme Court’s ruling will also have implications for the validity of the April 14 convention held by the Mark-led faction without INEC monitoring.
If the court allows Mark’s appeal and holds that courts lack jurisdiction over internal party affairs, the convention would be validated as a legitimate exercise of the party’s internal governance authority, and INEC’s refusal to monitor it could be challenged as a dereliction of statutory duty.
If the court dismisses the appeal and affirms the status quo order, the convention, held while the status quo order was in force, could be challenged as conducted in violation of a subsisting court directive, potentially following the path of the PDP’s nullified Ibadan convention.
The Supreme Court’s decision to reserve judgment without indicating a date creates a period of uncertainty that will be acutely felt across the ADC and the broader opposition landscape.
With party primaries opening on April 23, every day without a ruling reduces the ADC’s capacity to comply with INEC’s electoral timetable. Without a definitive Supreme Court verdict, INEC cannot restore the Mark leadership to its portal, the party cannot conduct officially recognised primaries, and aspirants cannot file valid nomination papers.
The accelerated hearing procedure that the Supreme Court adopted, compressing weeks of filings into days, suggested an intention to resolve the matter with urgency. Whether the judgment follows with similar speed or takes the weeks or months that Supreme Court judgments sometimes require will determine whether the ADC can still participate in the 2027 elections.
For the ADC, its leaders, its aspirants, and the millions of Nigerians who had hoped the party would serve as a credible opposition platform, the waiting begins.
The Supreme Court has heard. The arguments have been made. Judgment is reserved.
Interested buyers are encouraged to place their orders and enquiries via:
0704 444 4777, 0704 444 4999, 0818 199 9888
Website: www.alexandernigeria.com
Reimagine your practice with the power of AI “...this is the only Nigerian book I know of on the topic.” — Ohio Books Ltd
Authored by Ben Ijeoma Adigwe, Esq., ACIArb (UK), LL.M, Dip. in Artificial Intelligence, Director, Delta State Ministry of Justice, Asaba, Nigeria.
Bonus:
Get a FREE eBook titled “How to Use the AI in Legalpedia and Law Pavilion” with every purchase.
How to Order: 📞 Call, Text, or WhatsApp: 08034917063 | 07055285878 📧 Email: benadigwe1@gmail.com 🌐 Website: www.benadigwe.com
Ebook Version: Access directly online at: https://selar.com/prv626
_______________________________________________________________________ [A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
The book, titled The Law of Torts in Nigeria: A Functional Approach, authored by Professor Hagler Sunny Okorie Ph.D and Ikeocha, Nathaniel Ngozi Esq, offers law students, practitioners, and academics a comprehensive guide to understanding and applying tort law in Nigerian courts. Interested buyers can place orders via the following contact numbers: 08028636615, 08037667945, 08032253813, or +234 902 196 2209.
