On Tuesday, the Federal High Court in Abuja turned down a request from the Senator David Mark-led leadership of the African Democratic Party (ADC) to proceed with all pending motions and the primary case filed by Nafiu-Bala Gombe.
In his ruling, Justice Emeka Nwite addressed Gombe’s application to pause the proceedings indefinitely until the Supreme Court decides on an appeal filed by Mark.
The judge asserted that continuing the trial while the court’s very authority is being questioned at the highest level would conflict with the apex court’s role, noting that “the facts are glaring that an appealed had been entered” at the Supreme Court.
Justice Nwite highlighted that Mark’s Supreme Court filing sought to stop the enforcement of a March 12 Appeal Court judgment.
Emphasizing the legal necessity of establishing authority first, the judge remarked, “It is trite law that where a court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a suit, no matter how beautiful the judgment is delivered, it will be a nullity.”
Consequently, he maintained that “I am of the view and I so hold that it will not serve any purpose if the jurisdiction of this court is being challenged at Supreme Court and the court cannot await the Supreme Court decision”.
Read Also: Supreme Court Dismisses David Mark’s Application For Stay Of Execution
The court further dismissed the defense’s claim that an interlocutory appeal should not stall lower court proceedings. Justice Nwite reasoned that “The interlocutory appeal may likely dispense the case before this court. So the most honourable thing to do is to await the decision of the Supreme Court.”
He also pointed out an inconsistency in the defense’s logic: while they cited an Appeal Court order for an accelerated hearing, they were simultaneously asking the Supreme Court to cancel that same order. Deciding that waiting for the apex court was the fairest path, Justice Nwite adjourned the case sine die (indefinitely).
Earlier, Gombe’s attorney, Lukman Fagbemi, SAN, detailed the complex timeline of the case.
He recalled that on February 13, 2026, the court had initially paused the matter, stating, “At our last adjourned date on Feb 13, 2026, and that was the day this honourable court, upon the application of the 2nd defendant (Mark), made an order adjourning this matter sine die to wait for the outcome of the interlocutory appeal filed by the same 2nd defendant my Lord. Indeed, that is a valid order all courts will make in such circumstance.”
He noted that after the Appeal Court dismissed Mark’s appeal on March 12, it had ordered an accelerated hearing while also issuing a “preservatorry order directing all parties not to take any step or further step that would amount to destroying the res (subject matter) before this honourable court by maintaining status quo ante bellum.”
Read Also: Wike Opens Up On ADC Venue Denial Claims, Makes Strong Demand
Despite the push for speed, Fagbemi explained that Mark’s subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court on March 16 changed the dynamic.
He informed the court that “We were summoned by the Supreme Court upon the entry of that appeal my lord, and all parties appeared before the Supreme Court this morning.”
While a request to stay execution was withdrawn, the Supreme Court set a tight schedule for legal briefs and fixed a hearing for April 22, leading Fagbemi to argue for a total pause at the High Court.
Conversely, lawyers for the ADC, David Mark, and Rauf Aregbesola fought the adjournment, insisting that the High Court was still free to act since the Supreme Court had struck out the stay of execution motion. Shaibu Aruwa, SAN, argued that under Section 83(6) of the Electoral Act 2026, the case is unique and must be fast-tracked.
He stressed the urgency by stating, “I will also refer my Lord to the motion ex-parte I filed wherein I apply that this court should take this suit during Easter vacation from day to day, including Saturday and Sunday. This is for the fact that the 1st defendant has already published its timetable for the 2027 general elections and the 1st defendant is expected to start its conduct of primary elections for the nomination of its candidates.”
Defense counsel Sulaiman Usman, SAN, added that INEC had wrongly removed Mark and Aregbesola’s names from leadership records based on a misread of court orders, a move he argued only the court could rectify.
While the defense urged the judge to hear the entire case and simply delay the final verdict until the Supreme Court speaks, INEC’s lawyer, Hassan Aminu, remained neutral, stating, “The 4th defendant is not taking any position in this matter as we have indicated. My lord, we leave it to your lordship’s discretion.”
The original suit by Gombe seeks to bar Mark and Aregbesola from their roles, claiming their leadership transition breached party rules and national law.
