The Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday postponed the judgment in a lawsuit initiated by Rep. Leke Abejide until April 14.
Abejide is petitioning the court for an order to stop Sen. David Mark and Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola from parading themselves as the national chairman and national secretary of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
Although Justice Musa Liman had previously scheduled the verdict for today, the delivery was stalled because the judge was occupied with another official commitment.
The legal battle began when Abejide, a member of the House of Representatives, filed an originating summons in February 2026 against the ADC, its former chairman Ralph Nwosu, Mark, Aregbesola, and INEC.
Read Also: Kwankwaso Opens Up On ADC Sharing Formula
The lawmaker is specifically challenging the July 2025 transition of power from Nwosu to Mark and Aregbesola, arguing that the handover at the Shehu Musa Yar’adua Centre was illegal.
He is seeking a perpetual injunction to prevent Mark and Aregbesola from acting as party leaders, asserting that “as their purported appointment, selection or election was unlawful, illegal, null and void.”
Furthermore, Abejide has asked the court to bar the Independent National Electoral Commission from acknowledging the current interim leadership.
He contends that the commission should not recognize them “as their appointment, selection or election did not meet the requirements of Section 82 of the Electoral Act, 2022”.
Read Also: What Happened When Actor Zubby Michael Joined ADC [VIDEO]
In response, the defendants and their respective legal teams have urged the court to throw out the case, maintaining that Abejide lacks the standing to sue.
They argued that the dispute concerns the internal mechanics of a political party, which are non-justiciable, and claimed the court lacks jurisdiction.
The defense further clarified that the Mark-led executive was actually elected during a National Executive Committee meeting on July 29, 2025, rather than the date cited by the plaintiff.
Consequently, they requested the court to dismiss the suit with substantial costs, arguing that the matter is academic.
