ADC: Court Throws out Suit against Mark-Led Leadership

A Federal High Court in Abuja, presided over by Justice Musa Liman, has dismissed a suit challenging the Senator David Mark-led leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC). The court held that the dispute constituted an internal affair of the political party, thereby rendering it non-justiciable. Additionally, the plaintiff, Hon. Leke Abejide, was found to lack the necessary locus standi and failed to exhaust the party's internal dispute resolution mechanisms before approaching the court. The judgment affirmed the validity of Mark and Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola's emergence as National Chairman and National Secretary, respectively, in accordance with the ADC constitution and the Electoral Act, 2026. Significant costs were awarded against the plaintiff and his counsel.

The Federal High Court in Abuja recently delivered a pivotal judgment affirming the leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) under Senator David Mark, dismissing a suit that sought to nullify the party's leadership transition. This decision, rendered by Justice Musa Liman, underscores the enduring principle of judicial non-interference in the internal affairs of political parties, a cornerstone of Nigerian political jurisprudence. The case, brought by Hon. Leke Abejide, a member of the House of Representatives, challenged the process that led to the emergence of Senator Mark as National Chairman and Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola as National Secretary of the ADC.

The judgment is particularly significant as it reaffirms the boundaries of judicial intervention in intra-party disputes, especially in the context of the recently enacted Electoral Act, 2026. The court's pronouncements on jurisdiction, locus standi, and the necessity of exhausting internal party remedies provide crucial guidance for political actors and legal practitioners navigating the often-contentious landscape of party politics in Nigeria. This article will delve into the background of the case, analyze the court's reasoning, and explore the broader implications for internal party democracy and judicial review in Nigeria.

The legal framework governing political parties and electoral processes in Nigeria is primarily enshrined in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), and the Electoral Act, 2026 (which repealed the Electoral Act, 2022). A long-standing doctrine in Nigerian jurisprudence, established in landmark cases such as *Onuoha v. Okafor (1983) 2 SCNLR 244*, holds that courts generally lack jurisdiction to interfere in the "internal affairs" of political parties. This doctrine posits that issues concerning party nominations, leadership, and congresses are domestic matters to be determined by the party's constitution and rules, as parties are voluntary associations.

However, this principle has seen periods of erosion and reaffirmation, particularly with successive amendments to the Electoral Act. While Section 84 of the Electoral Act, 2026, makes disputes arising from primary elections justiciable, it generally maintains that congresses for the election of party officers remain non-justiciable internal matters. Notably, Section 83(5) and (6) of the Electoral Act, 2026, introduces a stringent jurisdictional exclusion clause for suits relating to internal party affairs and imposes mandatory cost sanctions against litigants and their counsel who bring such actions. This legislative intent aims to curb the proliferation of intra-party litigation and encourage internal dispute resolution.

The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1637/2025, was initiated by Hon. Leke Abejide, a House of Representatives member, challenging the leadership of Senator David Mark and Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola as National Chairman and National Secretary of the African Democratic Congress (ADC). The plaintiff sought to nullify the handover of leadership by the former National Chairman, Chief Ralph Nwosu, on July 2, 2025, and to restrain the new leaders from parading themselves as such, while also seeking to prevent the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognizing them.

Justice Musa Liman, in dismissing the suit, upheld the preliminary objections raised by the defendants, which included the ADC, Chief Ralph Nwosu, Senator David Mark, and Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola. The court's decision rested on three primary grounds. Firstly, Justice Liman held that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter, characterizing the issues as purely internal affairs of a political party and therefore non-justiciable. This aligns with the long-standing judicial precedent that courts should not micromanage political parties, except where specific statutory provisions, such as those relating to primary elections, grant jurisdiction.

Secondly, the court found that Hon. Abejide lacked the requisite locus standi to institute the suit. He failed to demonstrate how his personal rights had been violated by the emergence of the Mark-led leadership, a critical requirement for accessing judicial remedies in such matters. Thirdly, Justice Liman noted that the plaintiff had not exhausted the internal dispute resolution mechanisms provided within the ADC's constitution before resorting to litigation. This emphasizes the judiciary's preference for parties to resolve their internal disagreements through established party processes, thereby reducing the burden on the courts.

Beyond these jurisdictional and procedural hurdles, the court also delved into the substantive issues, resolving them in favour of the defendants. Justice Liman affirmed that the process leading to the emergence of Senator Mark and Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola as leaders complied with both the ADC constitution and the Electoral Act, 2026. Specifically, the court found that the handover of leadership by Chief Nwosu did not contravene the party's constitution and that the July 2, 2025, stakeholders' meeting, followed by the National Executive Council (NEC) meeting on July 29, 2025, which formally produced the new leadership, was valid and monitored by INEC. The imposition of substantial costs of N2 million against Abejide for each defendant and N10 million against his counsel, pursuant to the Electoral Act, 2026, further reinforces the legislative and judicial stance against frivolous intra-party litigation.

The Federal High Court's decision in the suit challenging the ADC leadership serves as a significant reminder of the judiciary's reluctance to intervene in the internal affairs of political parties, particularly when statutory provisions and party constitutions are adhered to. For legal practitioners, this judgment reinforces the critical importance of advising clients on the principles of locus standi, the justiciability of disputes, and the mandatory requirement to exhaust internal party remedies before initiating court actions. The substantial costs awarded also signal a clear judicial and legislative intent to deter vexatious litigation in this domain.

Going forward, political parties are encouraged to strengthen their internal democratic processes and dispute resolution mechanisms to minimize external judicial intervention. Practitioners should meticulously review party constitutions and the Electoral Act, 2026, especially Section 83(5) and (6), when advising on leadership disputes or challenges to party congresses. This judgment solidifies the current legal landscape, emphasizing party autonomy while providing a framework for legitimate grievances to be addressed within the confines of established legal and party procedures.