Reported by: Oahimire Omone Precious | Edited by: Oravbiere Osayomore Promise.
The Court of Appeal in Abuja has dismissed an appeal filed by former Senate President and current National Chairman of the African Democratic Congress, Senator David Mark, in connection with a long‑running internal leadership dispute that has divided the party. The ruling represents a significant legal development in a case that has drawn national attention amid political realignments ahead of the 2027 general elections.
The origin of the dispute dates to mid‑2025, when the national leadership of the ADC resigned en masse in order to facilitate the party’s involvement in a broader opposition alliance. Party officials announced that Senator Mark would serve as interim National Chairman while a former minister would serve as National Secretary, describing the changes as part of efforts to strengthen opposition cooperation ahead of future elections.
However, almost immediately, the leadership transition sparked resistance from within the party. A faction led by a former Deputy National Chairman rejected the newly installed leadership, arguing that the process that brought Senator Mark and others into their positions was unconstitutional and violated the party’s own internal governance rules. The dissenting group maintained that only existing party members acting through proper procedures could legitimately determine leadership, and they asserted that the party’s constitution had been bypassed.
The conflict escalated into competing claims to party leadership, with both sides insisting that they represented the authentic authority within the ADC. The breakaway faction took its challenge to court, filing a lawsuit that sought to nullify the leadership changes and to restrain the Independent National Electoral Commission from recognising the Mark‑led executives.
Part of the legal strategy of the rival faction involved filing an application for immediate judicial relief without informing the other side, known as an ex parte application. That application sought to stop INEC from recognising the disputed leadership while the substantive case was pending. The Federal High Court in Abuja refused to grant that ex parte order, instead requiring that the matter be served on all parties involved in the dispute so that it could be fairly argued before the court.
Dissatisfied with the trial court’s handling of the matter, Senator Mark’s legal team filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal, contending that the lower court had erred in its handling of the application and suggesting that those decisions undermined the court’s jurisdiction over the case.
At the Court of Appeal, a three‑member panel examined the appeal but ultimately dismissed it on procedural grounds. The appellate judges agreed with the arguments presented by the opposing faction that the appeal was not properly grounded in the official ruling of the trial court. The court explained that only decisions formally read in open court by a judge, rather than orders prepared by court staff, constitute valid rulings for purposes of appeal. The judges also noted that the appeal appeared to challenge issues that had not yet been conclusively decided by the trial court.
In addition, the Court of Appeal ruled that the notice of appeal filed by Senator Mark was invalid because it sought to challenge what is known as an interlocutory ruling — a decision that addresses procedural aspects of a case rather than finally determining the substantive rights of the parties. Under Nigerian law, appeals of interlocutory decisions generally require prior leave of the court, and because such leave had not been obtained, the appeal was considered incompetent and was dismissed.
Because the appeal was dismissed on procedural grounds, the substantive dispute over the leadership of the ADC remains unresolved and continues to play out before the Federal High Court. The underlying case still seeks a determination of whether the processes that elevated Senator Mark and others to leadership positions complied with the party’s constitution and with applicable law.
The leadership crisis has not been limited to legal arguments. It has manifested as a broader political contest within the party, with supporters of both factions publicly asserting their claims to legitimacy. Some party members aligned with Senator Mark have continued to organise party activities, including appointing zonal executives and engaging with grassroots structures, efforts they describe as necessary steps to maintain organisational continuity.
Meanwhile, opponents of the Mark‑led leadership have continued to pursue their legal challenge and mobilise support among party stakeholders who share their concerns over the way leadership changes were effected. Former presidential candidates and other high‑profile party figures have also weighed in, framing the conflict as not just a legal disagreement but a fundamental debate over the identity, direction and values of the party.
Analysts say that the leadership dispute has broader implications for opposition politics in Nigeria. As one of the political parties aspiring to play a meaningful role in shaping electoral outcomes in 2027, the ADC’s internal stability is seen as important not only to its own fortunes but also to wider coalition dynamics among opposition forces. A divided party, they argue, could weaken efforts to present a unified challenge to the ruling party and limit the party’s ability to attract broad popular support.
The Independent National Electoral Commission, for its part, has updated its records to reflect changes in party leadership over time, but it has remained cautious amid ongoing litigation and conflicting claims. The exact position recognised by the commission at any given time has been a source of controversy, with each faction asserting that it is the legitimate leadership deserving of official recognition.
With the Court of Appeal’s dismissal leaving the substantive dispute unresolved, attention now turns to the Federal High Court where the main lawsuit continues. Both sides are preparing further legal arguments, and the outcome of that case could determine who is legally recognised as the rightful leader of the ADC.
Observers note that party litigation in Nigeria frequently centers on technical procedural issues as much as substantive constitutional questions. The requirement for correct appellate procedure, as highlighted in the Court of Appeal’s judgment, underscores the complex interplay between legal technicalities and political strategy in high‑stakes party disputes.
As the 2027 general elections approach, the pressure on the ADC to achieve clarity and unity in its leadership is likely to grow. For now, the party remains in a state of legal and political contestation as factions continue to pursue their competing visions for its future.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments