ADC Crisis: Supreme Court fixes date to hear David Mark’s appeal

The Supreme Court will on Tuesday hear an appeal filed by David Mark, the embattled National Chairman of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).

Join the Premium Times WhatsApp Community For Quick Access To News and Happenings Around You.

Open in WhatsApp

Mr Mark is seeking an order staying the execution of the 12 March judgment of the Court of Appeal.

The apex court, in a hearing notice with appeal number: SC/CV/180/2026 between Mr Mark vs Nafiu-Bala Gombe and four others, said the proceeding is scheduled for 14 April.

The hearing notice, sent to the parties in the case through the Litigation Department of the Supreme Court on Friday was sighted by the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) on Sunday in Abuja.

The hearing date coincides with the date earlier fixed by the trial judge, Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court (FHC), Abuja.

Although the two cases will be coming up on Tuesday, NAN learnt that the lower court may, however, step down the matter or adjourn its hearing, pending the hearing at the apex court, in line with the superiority of courts.

Mr Mark, the appellant, named Nafiu-Bala Gombe, ADC, Rauf Aregbesola, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), and Ralp Nwosu as the 1st to 5th respondents, respectively.

Stay Ahead with Premium Times

Add as a preferred source on Google

Mr Mark, in the motion on notice filed by his lawyer, Realwan Okpanachi, prayed the court for an order staying execution of the appellate court’s judgment pending the hearing and determination of his appeal.

He also sought an order restraining INEC from acting on the Appeal Court’s judgment by recognising any person(s) other than him and the existing national officers of ADC, pending the hearing and determination of his appeal.

Mr Mark, a former Senate president, further prayed the apex court for an order, restraining INEC from tampering with the national leadership structure of the party as presently constituted and represented by him, pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.

Besides, he sought an order staying further proceedings in suit number: FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025, pending before Justice Nwite, the trial judge at FHC, pending the hearing and determination of his appeal at the apex court.

The motion on notice was brought by his lawyer pursuant to Sections 6(6)(a) and 233 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended); Order 4, Rule 1 of the Supreme Court’s Rules 7074 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the court.

Pushing a 12-ground argument, Mr Okpanachi said the Court of Appeal delivered judgment in appeal number CA/ABJ/CV/145/2026 on 12 March.

He said that Mr Mark, being dissatisfied with the said judgment, filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court on 16 March, and that the record of appeal was duly compiled and transmitted on 31 March.

According to the lawyer, the appeal has been duly entered before this honourable court as appeal number: SC/CV/180/2026.

He said one of the orders made by the Appeal Court was that parties should maintain the status quo ante bellum.

“The 1st respondent (Gombe) has been relying on the said order to write to the 4th respondent (INEC), urging it to refrain from dealing with or recognising the appellant (Mark) and other national officers of the 2nd respondent (ADC).

“The actions of the 1st respondent (Gombe) amount to attempted enforcement of the judgment of the Court of Appeal,” he said.

The lawyer, however, said Mr Mark had filed a competent appeal, challenging the entire judgment of the Court of Appeal.

“Unless this application is granted, the judgment of the Court of Appeal will be enforced and the appeal rendered nugatory.”

Mr Okpanachi, who submitted that the appeal raised substantial and arguable issues of law, stated that the balance of justice favours the grant of the application.

“It is in the interest of justice to preserve the res and protect the authority of this honourable court,” he prayed.

NAN reports that INEC had, on 1 April, removed the names of Messrs Mark and Aregbesola from its official portal and website as ADC’s national chairman and national secretary, respectively, following the Appeal Court’s judgement.

In reaction to INEC’s decision, Mr Mark filed a motion on notice before Justice Nwite on 7 April by his new lawyer, Sulaiman Usman, SAN, praying the court to order the commission to restore their names as it were, before the institution of the suit by Mr Gombe.

He also sought an order for accelerated hearing of the case, and the judge fixed 14 April for the hearing.

Mr Gombe had, in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025 at the FHC, sued ADC, Mr Mark, Mr Aregbesola, INEC and Mr Nwosu as 1st to 5th defendants respectively.

Mr Nwosu was the former ADC National Chairman, who stepped down in favour of David Mark.

Mr Gombe, who was the former National Deputy Chairman of ADC, had urged Justice Nwite to restrain Messrs Mark and Aregbesola from parading themselves as national chairman and national secretary of the party.

The aggrieved ex-deputy national chairman argued that the emergence of Messrs Mark and Aregbesola as leaders breached the provisions of the party’s constitution and the Electoral Act.

The judge had, on 4 September 2025, declined to grant an ex parte motion filed by Mr Gombe, seeking to stop the Mark-led leadership of the ADC, pending the hearing of his substantive suit.

Mr Nwite refused the three prayers sought in the ex parte motion filed by Mr Gombe and moved by his lawyer, Michael Agber.

READ ALSO: ADC backs NBA’s position, rejects court’s intervention in party internal disputes

Rather, the judge directed Mr Gombe, the plaintiff in the suit, to put all the defendants on notice to show cause why the motion should not be granted.

The judge then adjourned the matter until 15 September 2025, for the defendants to show cause.

However, the Mark-led ADC approached the court of appeal, challenging the lower court’s jurisdiction to hear the suit, and the appellate court ordered the parties to return to the trial court and maintain the status quo ante bellum pending determination of the case.