By Nchetachi Chukwuajah
The Federal High Court in Abuja has adjourned indefinitely the suit filed by a former Deputy National Chairman of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Nafiu Bala Gombe, challenging the party’s leadership under former Senate President David Mark.
Justice Emeka Nwite adjourned the matter, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025, indefinitely after the plaintiff informed the court on Friday, May 8, that he had applied to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court for the transfer of the case to another judge.
At the resumed proceedings, counsel for the plaintiff, Luka Musa Haruna, told the court that the Supreme Court had on April 30 dismissed the interlocutory appeal earlier filed by Mark against the proceedings.
Haruna said the apex court also set aside the Court of Appeal’s order staying proceedings in the substantive suit.
“The interlocutory appeal of the second defendant has travelled to the Supreme Court. My Lord, we are glad to inform this honourable court that on the 30th day of April 2026, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment on the interlocutory appeal dismissing the said appeal for lacking in merit,” he said.
The plaintiff’s counsel, however, disclosed that the plaintiff had written a letter dated May 4, 2026, to the Chief Judge seeking reassignment of the case to another judge.
Haruna urged Justice Nwite to await the administrative decision of the Chief Judge on the request.
“At this juncture, we must humbly pray to your Lordship to wait for the administrative decision of the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court,” Haruna said.
The plaintiff’s request for reassignment of the case was opposed by lawyers representing the defendants, who accused the plaintiff of attempting to frustrate the accelerated hearing earlier ordered by the Court of Appeal and upheld by the Supreme Court.
Counsel for the first defendant, Realwan Okpanachi, faulted the plaintiff for allegedly ambushing the defence with the transfer request.
Okpanachi said, “We have not received any communication regarding that application. My Lord, so as it is, we don’t know the form or the content of that application. Therefore, we take the approach of the plaintiff as an ambush.
“We also consider it as an attempt to frustrate the order of accelerated hearing granted by the Court of Appeal and upheld by the Supreme Court.”
Counsel for the second defendant, Sulaiman Usman, prayed the court not to allow the application, as it portends a “dangerous trend” for the judiciary.
“So my Lord, for the plaintiffs to come back to this court, and to inform us today that they have written a private correspondence to the Honourable Chief Judge, and to hinge that to make a request for this court to await the outcome of that private correspondence, is not only unfortunate, My Lord, but a dangerous trend which must not be allowed to stand,” he said.
Counsel for the fifth defendant, P.I. Oyewole, also opposed the request, describing it as “strange” and accusing the plaintiff of inviting the Chief Judge “to indulge in judicial rascality.”
In his response, Haruna maintained that the plaintiff stood by the application.
While ruling on the matter, Justice Nwite held that the court could not take any action on the letter without hearing all parties.
He said, “Taking a decision or any action in such a letter without hearing from the defendants will amount to a breach of their fundamental right in this suit.”
The judge added that since the letter was addressed to the Chief Judge, the trial court could not make any pronouncement on it and subsequently adjourned the matter indefinitely.
“This matter is best adjourned sine die to afford the parties properly file a Certified True Copy of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the interlocutory appeal in the suit, to serve the defendants with the letter addressed to the Honourable Chief Judge, and finally to await further or any directive from the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court,” Justice Nwite said.
The plaintiff is seeking an order restraining David Mark, Rauf Aregbesola, and others from parading themselves as leaders of the ADC, arguing that their emergence violated the party’s constitution and provisions of the Electoral Act.
