Northern ADC Chairmen Reveal Next Move Over Mark’s Removal

The Forum of 19 Northern State Chairmen of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) has announced plans to challenge the Federal High Court judgment that removed the David Mark-led national leadership of the party.

The chairmen said they would approach the Court of Appeal to seek the reversal of the November 5 judgment delivered by Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja.

Politics Nigeria gathered that they also disclosed plans to petition the National Judicial Council (NJC), alleging that the court proceedings involved serious procedural violations and disregard for an earlier ruling on the party’s leadership dispute.

The northern party chairmen made their position known in a joint statement signed by the members of the forum and released on Tuesday.

They maintained that the latest judgment was inconsistent with an earlier decision delivered by another judge of the Federal High Court concerning the same leadership crisis.

According to the forum, the ruling delivered by Justice Lifu failed to take proper account of the July 2, 2026 judgment delivered by Justice Musa Liman in a case involving Leke Abejide and the ADC.

The chairmen argued that the earlier judgment had already addressed important issues surrounding the party’s leadership transition and the procedures followed by its National Executive Committee (NEC).

They explained that Justice Liman’s ruling upheld the 21-day notice issued to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and recognised the resolutions reached during the party’s National Executive Committee meeting held on July 29, 2025.

The decision also validated the transfer of the party’s leadership from its founder, Ralph Nwosu, to the National Working Committee led by former Senate President David Mark and former Osun State Governor Rauf Aregbesola.

The northern chairmen insisted that the earlier judgment remained legally binding and should not have been contradicted by another court of the same jurisdiction.

In their statement, they declared, “We reject this judgment in its entirety and shall challenge it at the appellate court. It is a clear departure from established judicial precedents on the same subject matter.”

They further maintained, “The judgment of Justice Musa Liman remains valid and binding. Justice Lifu’s decision amounts to a contradiction of a ruling by a court of coordinate jurisdiction on the same leadership dispute.”

Beyond the alleged conflict between the two judgments, the forum questioned the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to interfere in the internal administration of a political party.

The chairmen cited provisions of the Electoral Act 2022 and previous Supreme Court decisions which, according to them, support the position that courts should exercise caution when dealing with disputes involving the internal affairs of political parties.

They argued that the latest ruling raised important questions about the legal boundaries governing party administration and the extent to which judicial intervention could affect the decisions of political organisations.

The forum also challenged the legal standing of Bala Gombe, who instituted the suit that resulted in the removal of the Mark-led leadership.

According to the chairmen, Gombe had previously resigned from his position as Deputy National Chairman and was involved in the process that led to the dissolution of the former National Executive Committee.

They questioned why someone who allegedly participated in the dissolution of the previous leadership structure should subsequently approach the court to challenge the arrangement that replaced it.

The statement maintained, “A person who resigned from the party’s leadership and took part in the dissolution of the former National Executive Committee lacks the locus standi to challenge the current leadership structure.”

The northern ADC leaders also raised concerns about the handling of applications submitted during the proceedings.

They accused the court of dismissing 27 preliminary objections, applications for a stay of proceedings and motions seeking to join other interested parties without giving the applicants an opportunity to properly present their positions.

They argued that the decision had serious implications for the rights of party members who were affected by the outcome but were not given the opportunity to participate in the case.

Another major concern raised by the forum was the impact of the judgment on ADC candidates, particularly those whose political positions and nominations were affected by the ruling.

The chairmen said the court went beyond the immediate dispute by terminating the national leadership structure, directing INEC not to recognise the party’s executives and nullifying the nominations of candidates.

Among the affected political interests was the presidential ticket led by former Vice President Atiku Abubakar.

The forum argued that the court should not have made decisions capable of affecting candidates who were not parties to the suit.

They maintained that the affected individuals should have been given an opportunity to defend their political interests before any decision was taken on their nominations.

“The affected candidates were not joined in the suit. Their political rights cannot be determined without being heard. This is a fundamental breach of the right to fair hearing,” they argued.

The chairmen said the issue of fair hearing was particularly important because the judgment had consequences beyond the individuals who initiated the legal dispute.

They insisted that the party’s candidates and other affected members should not be made to bear the consequences of a case in which they were not represented.

Despite the court’s decision, the forum reaffirmed its support for the David Mark-led National Working Committee.

It maintained that the leadership transition had followed the resolutions of the party’s relevant organs and should remain recognised until the legal dispute was finally resolved.

The northern chairmen also alleged that certain political interests were working to weaken the opposition through the prolonged leadership crisis.

They accused the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and unnamed government officials of attempting to influence the internal affairs of the ADC through the court case.

However, the allegations formed part of the forum’s position on the dispute.

According to the chairmen, the situation could affect the country’s multi-party democratic system if opposition parties were unable to resolve internal disagreements without prolonged legal battles.

They maintained that political parties should be allowed to manage their internal affairs in accordance with their constitutions and established legal procedures.

On the legal steps already taken, the forum disclosed that its lawyers had filed a notice of appeal against the judgment.

It also said applications for interim injunctions and a stay of execution had been submitted to prevent the enforcement of the ruling while the appeal remained pending.

The chairmen explained that the applications were intended to protect the party’s existing structure and the interests of its candidates until the appellate court determined the matter.

They further confirmed their intention to submit a formal petition to the National Judicial Council.