*As Federal High Court Voids Mark-Led Congresses And Three Factions Claim Victory From The Same Ruling
The Supreme Court of Nigeria will today deliver judgments in two high-stakes political appeals involving the leadership crises rocking the African Democratic Congress and the Peoples Democratic Party, in rulings scheduled for 2 p.m. that will either clear the path for the opposition’s participation in the 2027 general elections or effectively shut both parties out of the electoral process at the very moment the primaries window is open and closing.
The judgments, listed under “Political Appeals” on the apex court’s official cause list for Thursday, April 30, come nine days after the five-member panel led by Justice Mohammed Garba heard arguments from all parties on April 22 and reserved judgment, and just two days after the ADC’s legal team wrote to the Chief Justice of Nigeria warning that any further delay could expose the party to “grave and irreversible risk” of exclusion from the 2027 polls.
The Supreme Court’s rulings arrive against the backdrop of a Federal High Court judgment delivered on Wednesday by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik that voided the ADC’s congress committee, restrained INEC from recognising any congress organised by the Mark-led caretaker leadership, upheld the tenure of state executive committees, and barred Mark and other defendants from interfering with state structures, a ruling that has produced the remarkable spectacle of three competing ADC factions each claiming the judgment as a victory for their position.
The apex court will deliver judgment in three appeals, two involving the PDP and one involving the ADC.
The ADC Appeal (SC/CV/180/2026)
The ADC appeal, fixed for 2 p.m., centres on whether courts have jurisdiction to entertain disputes over the internal affairs of political parties.
Mark’s legal team, led by Jibril Okutepa SAN, argued at the April 22 hearing that the Supreme Court itself had settled the issue in a March 21, 2025 judgment holding that “no court has jurisdiction to entertain cases bordering on internal affairs of political parties.” He urged the apex court to allow the appeal and hold that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain Gombe’s suit.
Robert Emukpero SAN, representing Gombe, urged the court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the Court of Appeal’s judgment, which held that Mark’s earlier appeal was premature and brought without leave of the trial court. INEC did not file any process to either support or counter the appeal.
If the Supreme Court allows the appeal, it would clear the path for the Mark-led leadership to participate and field candidates in all elective offices in the 2027 elections. If the appeal fails, the ADC could be shut out on the grounds that it lacks a recognised leadership to conduct and supervise candidate selection.
The PDP Appeals
The PDP matters involve two related appeals arising from the controversial Ibadan convention of November 15 to 16, 2025, which produced the Kabiru Tanimu Turaki-led national executive.
In the first appeal, Paul Erokoro SAN, representing the Turaki-led executive, urged the Supreme Court to set aside the Court of Appeal’s judgment that nullified the Ibadan convention on grounds it was held in disobedience to Federal High Court orders. Sule Lamido, through his lawyer Ewere Aliemeke, and Chief Joseph Daudu SAN for the third to fifth respondents, urged the court to dismiss the appeal.
In the second appeal, Chief Chris Uche SAN, arguing for PDP, submitted that the two lower courts granted orders against the party’s convention without jurisdiction, urging the apex court to set aside both judgments and hold that the lower courts erred in assuming jurisdiction in the internal matters of PDP.
The PDP battle lines pit the faction said to be loyal to FCT Minister Nyesom Wike, an ally of President Tinubu, against the camp of Oyo State Governor Seyi Makinde. The legal dispute stemmed from Justice Peter Lifu’s order restraining the then Damagum-led executive from proceeding with the Ibadan convention until Lamido, an aspirant for national chairman, was given the opportunity to purchase nomination forms. The party defied the court order and held the convention, leading to its nullification by the Court of Appeal.
The Abdulmalik Judgment
The Federal High Court judgment delivered on Wednesday by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik in suit FHC/ABJ/CS/581/2026 has added a dramatic new dimension to the ADC crisis on the eve of the Supreme Court’s verdict.
The suit was filed by Don Norman Obinna, Johnny Tovie Derek, Obah C. Ehigiator, Hon. Olona Yinka, Dr. Charles Idowu Omideji, Samuel Pam Gyang, and Obianyo Patrick, suing for themselves and on behalf of all ADC state chairmen and state executive committees.
The defendants included the ADC, David Mark, Patricia Akwashiki, Malam Bolaji Abdullahi, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, Oserheimen Osunbor, and INEC.
Justice Abdulmalik held that neither the 1999 Constitution nor the ADC constitution empowered the caretaker or interim National Working Committee led by Mark to appoint committees for the purpose of conducting state congresses.
“The procedure adopted, including the appointment of a congress committee, is not recognised by the party’s constitution,” the judge ruled.
She relied on Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution, which mandates political parties to conduct periodic elections on democratic principles, and Article 23 of the ADC constitution, which provides that national and state officers shall hold office for a maximum of two terms spanning eight years.
On the jurisdictional objection that the matter was purely internal, the judge held: “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.”
The court set aside the appointment of the congress committee, restrained INEC from recognising any congress organised by it, restrained the Mark-led leadership from organising congresses or conventions outside the party’s constitution, and upheld the tenure of state executive committees as valid and subsisting.
Three Factions, One Judgment, Three Victory Claims
The Abdulmalik judgment produced the extraordinary result of three competing ADC factions each claiming it validated their position.
The Mark Faction dismissed concerns, with Mark himself assuring members: “You do not have anything to be afraid of regarding all the litigations before the party. I want to assure you that we shall triumph in all the cases, and we shall be on the ballot for every election. In this legal battle, though I am not a lawyer, I will lead from the front, and we shall surely triumph.”
ADC National Publicity Secretary Bolaji Abdullahi acknowledged the judgment but noted: “We issued a statement shortly after the congresses stating that the congresses have not truncated the tenure of the current State Executive. Nevertheless, the leadership of ADC has instructed its legal team to review the said judgment and advise the party appropriately.”
The Kachikwu Faction, led by the party’s 2023 presidential candidate Dumebi Kachikwu, celebrated the ruling as vindication. “I had long warned that the African Democratic Congress is not for sale and that these political buccaneers would be shown the way out through the same back door they came in from,” Kachikwu stated. He described the voided exercises as “kangaroo congresses” and an attempted “hostile takeover” that had “failed woefully.”
The State Chairmen, who filed the suit, claimed the most direct victory. Don Norman Obinna said the judgment “has clarified the authority structure within the party” and affirmed that “it is the responsibility of state executives to conduct congresses.” He declared that “the recognised NEC will now take over the administration of the party and organise fresh congresses and conventions in line with due process.”
Kingsley Ogga, Chairman of ADC State Chairmen, described the ruling as “a victory for grassroots leadership and internal democracy,” stating: “The ADC belongs to the people, not to any individual or group.”
The Osun State ADC chapter sought to reassure members, clarifying that the judgment “did not nullify ADC congresses nationwide” but “only restrained INEC from recognising the recently conducted congresses.” The chapter noted that arrangements were in place for the swearing-in of newly elected executives upon the expiration of the current tenure on May 12, 2026.
“A Car Without An Engine”
Legal practitioner and public affairs analyst Liborous Oshoma, speaking on Channels Television’s Politics Today, painted the starkest picture of the ADC’s predicament.
“This judgment makes ADC a car without an engine and without the force to move forward,” Oshoma stated.
