Court affirms David Mark-led ADC leadership, dismisses Abejide’s suit

The Federal High Court in Abuja has affirmed the leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) under former Senate President David Mark, dismissing a suit filed by Hon. Leke Abejide. The court, presided over by Justice Musa Liman, upheld preliminary objections, ruling that the suit bordered on the internal affairs of a political party, making it non-justiciable. Furthermore, the court found that Abejide lacked the requisite locus standi, having failed to demonstrate that his rights were infringed, and had not exhausted the party's internal dispute resolution mechanisms. This judgment reinforces the principle of judicial non-interference in the internal workings of political parties, provided due process and party constitutional provisions are observed.

The political landscape in Nigeria is frequently punctuated by internal party disputes, often culminating in protracted legal battles. A recent judgment by the Federal High Court in Abuja has once again brought to the fore the judiciary's stance on such matters, particularly concerning the leadership of political parties. In the case of *Hon. Leke Abejide v. African Democratic Congress & Ors.* (Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1637/2025), the court affirmed the leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) led by former Senate President David Mark, dismissing a challenge brought by a member of the House of Representatives, Hon. Leke Abejide.

This ruling is significant as it reiterates established legal principles regarding the limits of judicial intervention in the internal affairs of political parties, emphasizing the importance of internal dispute resolution mechanisms and the concept of locus standi. The decision provides clarity for the ADC, which has experienced considerable internal wrangling, and offers crucial guidance for political parties and legal practitioners navigating similar intra-party conflicts in the lead-up to future elections.

The core of Abejide's suit was a challenge to the process that led to the emergence of David Mark and Rauf Aregbesola as the interim National Chairman and National Secretary of the ADC, respectively. He argued that their ascension violated the party's constitution and the Electoral Act 2022. The Federal High Court's dismissal of this challenge, based on jurisdictional and procedural grounds, underscores the judiciary's reluctance to interfere in what it deems the domestic management of political associations, unless there is a clear breach of law or fundamental rights.

The legal framework governing political parties in Nigeria is primarily enshrined in the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and the Electoral Act 2022. These instruments regulate the formation, structure, and internal operations of political parties, with the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) playing a crucial oversight role. A recurring theme in Nigerian jurisprudence concerning political parties is the principle of non-justiciability of internal party affairs, which posits that courts should generally not interfere in the domestic management of parties. However, this principle is not absolute, with exceptions often carved out where there are clear violations of the party's constitution, the Electoral Act, or an infringement of a member's fundamental rights.

The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has been embroiled in a leadership crisis following the resignation of its former National Chairman, Ralph Nwosu. This led to the emergence of a new National Executive Committee (NEC) with former Senate President David Mark as interim National Chairman and former Osun State Governor Rauf Aregbesola as interim National Secretary. This transition reportedly occurred after a stakeholders' meeting on July 2, 2025, which preceded a formal NEC meeting on July 29, 2025, where the new leadership was ratified and monitored by INEC. The emergence of this new leadership, particularly ahead of the 2027 general elections, triggered multiple legal challenges from aggrieved members, including the suit by Hon. Leke Abejide.

Prior to this Federal High Court judgment, the leadership dispute had seen interventions at various levels of the judiciary. The Supreme Court had, in an earlier related matter, set aside a Court of Appeal order that had directed parties to maintain the status quo, effectively restoring the Mark-led executive temporarily and remitting the substantive suit to the Federal High Court for a full hearing on its merits. This complex legal history underscores the contentious nature of the ADC's leadership transition and the judiciary's evolving role in defining the boundaries of internal party democracy.

Hon. Leke Abejide, a member of the House of Representatives representing Yagba Federal Constituency in Kogi State, initiated the suit (FHC/ABJ/CS/1637/2025) on February 15, 2026, challenging the legitimacy of the David Mark-led leadership. Abejide contended that the handover of the party's leadership from Ralph Nwosu to David Mark and Rauf Aregbesola at a stakeholders' meeting on July 2, 2025, and their subsequent emergence, violated the ADC Constitution and the Electoral Act 2022. He sought orders to nullify the handover, restrain Mark and Aregbesola from parading themselves as party officials, and prevent INEC from recognizing them.

Justice Musa Liman, in his judgment delivered on July 2, 2026, dismissed Abejide's suit on several preliminary objections raised by the defendants, which included the ADC, Ralph Nwosu, David Mark, Rauf Aregbesola, and INEC. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit because the matter pertained to the internal affairs of a political party, rendering it non-justiciable. This aligns with a long-standing principle in Nigerian electoral jurisprudence, which generally restricts judicial intervention in the internal workings of political parties, as highlighted in various Supreme Court pronouncements.

Furthermore, Justice Liman ruled that Abejide lacked the legal standing (locus standi) to institute the suit. The court found that Abejide failed to establish that the emergence of the new leadership infringed upon any of his personal rights. A critical procedural flaw identified by the court was Abejide's failure to exhaust the internal dispute resolution mechanisms provided by the ADC's constitution before resorting to litigation. This requirement is a cornerstone of internal party democracy, encouraging parties to resolve their issues internally before burdening the courts.

On the substantive issues, the court resolved all three issues raised in favour of the defendants. Justice Liman specifically held that the emergence of Mark and Aregbesola as leaders complied with the ADC Constitution, the Electoral Act 2022, and the party's rules. The court clarified that the July 2, 2025, meeting was a stakeholders' gathering that preceded the legitimate National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting of July 29, 2025, where Mark and Aregbesola were formally elected, a process that was duly monitored by INEC. The court consequently awarded costs of N2 million against Abejide in favour of each of the defendants, and an additional N10 million against his counsel in line with the Electoral Act.

Following this judgment and the protracted internal crisis, Hon. Leke Abejide announced his exit from the ADC, citing the internal disputes, leadership uncertainty, and alleged attempts to frustrate his political ambition. His defection underscores the significant impact of such leadership tussles on party cohesion and individual political trajectories.

The Federal High Court's decision affirming the David Mark-led leadership of the African Democratic Congress serves as a crucial reminder of the judiciary's role in upholding the sanctity of internal party processes while also defining the boundaries of its intervention. By dismissing Hon. Leke Abejide's suit on grounds of non-justiciability, lack of locus standi, and failure to exhaust internal remedies, the court has reinforced the principle that political parties must first seek to resolve their disputes through established internal mechanisms.

For legal practitioners, this judgment underscores the critical importance of thoroughly assessing jurisdictional prerequisites, particularly locus standi and the exhaustion of internal remedies, before advising clients on challenging internal party decisions. It highlights that courts will generally defer to a political party's internal processes, provided they are conducted in accordance with the party's constitution and the Electoral Act 2022. As Nigeria approaches the 2027 general elections, this ruling provides a measure of stability for the ADC's leadership and sends a clear message to other political parties: adherence to internal democratic principles and established dispute resolution frameworks is paramount to avoiding costly and ultimately unsuccessful litigation.