Court Drama: Gombe's ADC Suit vs David Mark Delayed Again
Elijah TobsBy Elijah Tobs
News
May 8, 2026 • 10:50 PM
5m5 min read
Source: Pexels
The Core Insight
The Federal High Court in Abuja indefinitely adjourned Nafiu Bala Gombe's suit challenging David Mark's leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), pending the Certified True Copy of a Supreme Court judgment and the Chief Judge's decision on a transfer request. Defendants accused the plaintiff of judge shopping and frustrating accelerated hearings ordered by higher courts, while the judge emphasized fair hearing for all parties.
As the founder and primary investigative voice at Kodawire, Elijah Tobs brings over 15 years of experience in dissecting complex geopolitical and financial systems. His work is centered on the ethical governance of emerging technologies, the shifting architectures of global finance, and the future of pedagogy in a digital-first world. A staunch advocate for high-fidelity journalism, he established Kodawire to be a sanctuary for deep-dive intelligence. Moving away from the ephemeral nature of modern headlines, Kodawire delivers permanent, verified insights that challenge the status quo and empower the global reader.
Federal High Court in Abuja Adjourns ADC Leadership Suit Indefinitely Again Over Judge Transfer Request
The Federal High Court (FHC) in Abuja on Friday adjourned indefinitely the suit filed by African Democratic Congress (ADC) chieftain Nafiu Bala Gombe challenging the Senator David Mark-led leadership of the ADC.
Federal High Court in Abuja, site of the latest adjournment. (Credit: Harrun Muhammad via Pexels)
Justice Emeka Nwite adjourned the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025 pending the presentation of the Certified True Copy (CTC) of the Supreme Court judgment and the decision of FHC Chief Judge Justice John Tsoho on the plaintiff's letter seeking transfer of the case to another judge.
Friday’s adjournment is the second indefinite one; the first was last month awaiting the Supreme Court's decision on an interlocutory appeal by second defendant David Mark.
A five-member panel of the Supreme Court had last week ordered the return of the suit to the trial court after dismissing Mark's interlocutory appeal and vacating the Court of Appeal's maintenance of status quo ante bellum order.
Friday's Proceedings
Intense legal arguments during Friday's proceedings. (Credit: Sora Shimazaki via Pexels)
Gombe’s lawyer, Luka Musa Haruna, briefed Justice Nwite on the Supreme Court proceedings and disclosed that his client had sent a letter dated May 4, 2026, to the Chief Judge applying for the case to be transferred to another judge. He said the letter had been transmitted to the court registrar and urged the judge to await the Chief Judge's administrative decision.
“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 defendants reacted angrily, accusing the plaintiff of an ambush aimed at frustrating the accelerated hearing ordered by the Court of Appeal and upheld by the Supreme Court.
Realwan Okpanachi, holding brief for first defendant counsel Shuaibu Aruwa, SAN, argued that the plaintiff misrepresented the Supreme Court judgment, which partially allowed the appeal and upheld the accelerated hearing order. He faulted the transfer request as an ambush, noting they had received no communication on it.
“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.”
Realwan Okpanachi, counsel for first defendant
Sulaiman Usman, counsel for second defendant David Mark, condemned the move as “forum shopping and judge shopping,” noting the Supreme Court had commended Justice Nwite in glowing terms.
“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... is not only unfortunate My Lord, but a dangerous trend which must not be allowed to stand.”
Sulaiman Usman, counsel for second defendant
Counsel for the third defendant, M.E. Sherriff, aligned with the other defendants. Counsel for the fifth defendant, P.I. Oyewole, described the application as “strange” and accused the plaintiff of inviting the Chief Judge to indulge in “judicial rascality,” calling it worse than forum shopping.
Haruna responded by faulting the defence for attacking a letter they had not seen.
Justice Nwite's Ruling
Justice Nwite delivering the indefinite adjournment ruling. (Credit: KATRIN BOLOVTSOVA via Pexels)
Justice Nwite ruled that the court could not take any decision on the letter without hearing from all parties, as it would breach the defendants' fundamental rights. He noted the letter was addressed to the Chief Judge, so the trial court could not pronounce on it.
“This matter is best adjourned sine die to afford the parties file the 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 Emeka Nwite
Background of the Suit
Key documents in the ADC leadership dispute. (Credit: Gustavo Fring via Pexels)
Gombe seeks an order restraining the Mark leadership from parading as ADC leaders and restraining INEC from recognizing them, pending determination of the suit.
In an earlier ruling on the interlocutory application, Justice Nwite ordered Gombe to put the defendants on notice to show cause why the prayers should not be granted.
The defendants instead appealed to the Court of Appeal, Abuja division, challenging the trial court's jurisdiction over what they called internal ADC matters.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, ordered accelerated hearing, and directed maintenance of status quo ante bellum. Mark appealed to the Supreme Court, which dismissed it and returned the matter to the trial court.
