Reported by: Oahimire Omone Precious | Edited by: Oravbiere Osayomore Promise.
The leadership tussle within the African Democratic Congress has intensified as former Senate President David Mark and his faction have approached the Federal High Court in Abuja seeking to overturn the Independent National Electoral Commission’s decision to withdraw recognition of the party’s national leadership.
The legal move comes amid a widening dispute over control of the party structure, following INEC’s April 1 decision to remove the names of Mark as National Chairman and Rauf Aregbesola as National Secretary from its official records, citing compliance with a Court of Appeal order that altered the status of the party’s recognised executives.
The electoral commission’s action has triggered multiple court filings and counterclaims from rival factions, including a camp led by Nafiu Bala Gombe, who is also laying claim to the party’s leadership and had previously sought judicial intervention to restrain INEC from recognising the Mark-led executive.
The latest application filed by Mark’s legal team, led by Senior Advocate of Nigeria Sulaiman Usman, is seeking a mandatory injunction compelling INEC to restore the names of the current National Working Committee members in its official records and portal, pending the determination of the substantive suit before the court.
The motion also asks the court to set aside INEC’s decision to withdraw recognition of the party leadership and its refusal to monitor or supervise the ADC’s internal congresses and conventions until the dispute is resolved.
According to the filings, the Mark-led faction argues that INEC misinterpreted the Court of Appeal’s directive when it removed the party executives from its records, insisting that the move created a leadership vacuum and disrupted the party’s internal administration.
The legal team further contends that the leadership structure was already validly constituted before the dispute escalated, maintaining that David Mark remains the recognised National Chairman and that Rauf Aregbesola continues as National Secretary under the disputed arrangement.
The application also seeks accelerated hearing of the case, with the legal team urging the court to abridge timelines for filing processes and hear the matter on a day-to-day basis, citing the urgency of resolving uncertainty that they say is affecting the party’s political operations and democratic participation.
The crisis traces back to competing interpretations of internal party processes following the resignation of former national chairman Ralph Nwosu, which led to the emergence of parallel leadership claims and subsequent court actions.
INEC, in its response to earlier litigation, had stated that it acted based on judicial directives and removed the leadership names from its portal to comply with legal interpretation of the appellate court ruling, while maintaining that it would not supervise party activities until the dispute is resolved.
The controversy has deepened divisions within the ADC, with rival factions accusing one another of attempting to unlawfully seize control of the party through irregular congresses, disputed documentation, and competing claims of legitimacy.
Meanwhile, political figures associated with the broader opposition coalition have weighed in on the situation, with meetings reportedly held between leaders of the Peoples Democratic Party and ADC stakeholders, including former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, former Labour Party presidential candidate Peter Obi, and other senior political actors.
Those discussions were described as focused on the challenges facing opposition parties in Nigeria and the broader need to maintain political unity in the face of institutional and electoral pressures.
However, the crisis has also attracted sharp criticism from within the party, with Senator Victor Umeh accusing INEC of misinterpreting judicial decisions and alleging bias in the handling of the leadership dispute.
Umeh argued that internal party leadership matters are not justiciable under Nigerian law, citing past Supreme Court rulings and recent constitutional interpretations, and insisting that courts lack jurisdiction to determine leadership of political parties.
He further criticised the electoral commission for acting on what he described as a flawed interpretation of court orders, arguing that the dispute should have remained strictly within the internal mechanisms of the party.
The competing legal arguments have now placed INEC at the centre of a complex constitutional debate over the extent of judicial and electoral oversight in internal party affairs, a recurring issue in Nigeria’s multiparty democratic system.
Legal analysts note that the case raises fundamental questions about the boundaries between judicial intervention, electoral regulation, and political party autonomy, especially in situations where internal disputes escalate into parallel leadership structures.
The Federal High Court is expected to hear the applications in the coming weeks, with both factions seeking urgent resolution to determine which group retains control of the party’s national executive structure.
The outcome of the case is expected to have significant implications for the ADC’s participation in future political activities, including congresses, conventions, and electoral preparations, as the leadership uncertainty continues to affect its organisational stability.
INEC has maintained that it will continue to act in accordance with court rulings and legal interpretations until a final judicial determination settles the dispute.
As proceedings advance, the ADC leadership crisis remains one of the most closely watched internal party disputes in the country, reflecting broader tensions within Nigeria’s opposition politics and the legal complexities surrounding party governance and electoral regulation.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters News | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments