Supreme Court of Nigeria will on Tuesday hear separate appeals arising from leadership disputes in two major opposition parties, the African Democratic Congress and the Peoples Democratic Party.
The appeal by embattled ADC National Chairman, David Mark, is slated for hearing alongside that of the Governor Seyi Makinde-backed factional leadership of the PDP, led by Tanimu Turaki (SAN), both challenging judgments of the Court of Appeal of Nigeria.
The PDP crisis is headed for judicial resolution at the apex court, as the Turaki-led faction is challenging the appellate court decision, which nullified its national convention and leadership structure.
The faction had insisted that the judgment, if allowed to stand, would destabilise the party and had, therefore, approached the Supreme Court for a final determination of the dispute.
Mark, a former Senate President, is seeking an order to stay the execution of the March 12 appellate court judgment affecting the leadership of the ADC, pending the determination of his appeal.
A hearing notice in Appeal No: SC/CV/180/2026, between Mark and Nafiu-Bala Gombe and four others, is fixed for April 14 for the proceeding. The notice, issued through the litigation department of the apex court, was sighted in Abuja.
The notice, issued through the litigation department of the apex court, was sighted in Abuja on Sunday.
The date coincides with an earlier hearing scheduled before Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court in a related matter.
However, the lower court may step down its proceedings in deference to the apex court, in line with the hierarchy of courts.
In the appeal, Mark listed Gombe, the ADC, Rauf Aregbesola, the Independent National Electoral Commission, and former ADC national chairman, Ralph Nwosu as 1st to 5th respondents.
Through his lawyer, Realwan Okpanachi, Mark is asking the court to stay execution of the appellate court’s judgment and restrain INEC from recognising any person other than him and the current national officers of the party, pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.
He also sought an order restraining INEC from tampering with the party’s leadership structure as presently constituted under him, as well as an order staying further proceedings in Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025 before Justice Nwite pending the determination of the appeal.
The application, filed pursuant to constitutional provisions and the Supreme Court Rules, is supported by 12 grounds.
Okpanachi stated that the Court of Appeal, in its March 12 judgment in Appeal No: CA/ABJ/CV/145/2026, directed parties to maintain the status quo ante bellum.
He alleged that Gombe had relied on the order to write to INEC, urging the commission not to recognise Mark and other national officers of the ADC, describing the move as an attempt to enforce the judgment.
According to him, Mark filed a notice of appeal on March 16, while the record of appeal was transmitted on March 31 and duly entered before the apex court.
“Unless this application is granted, the judgment of the Court of Appeal will be enforced and the appeal rendered nugatory,” the lawyer argued, adding that the appeal raised substantial issues of law and that the balance of justice favours granting the application.
Confirming the development to our correspondent, the spokesperson for the ADC, Bolaji Abdullahi, said both the Supreme Court matter and the related case before the Federal High Court were slated for the same day.
“Yes. The information I have is that they are scheduled on the same day. I don’t know if it’s the same time, but it’s the same day,” he said.
The PUNCH reports that INEC had, on April 1, removed the names of Mark and Aregbesola from its official portal as national chairman and national secretary of the ADC, respectively, following the appellate court judgment.
In response, Mark, through another counsel, Sulaiman Usman (SAN), filed a motion before the Federal High Court on April 7, seeking an order compelling INEC to restore their names as they were before the suit was instituted, as well as an accelerated hearing of the case.
Justice Nwite subsequently fixed April 14 for the hearing.
The dispute arose from a suit filed by Gombe, a former Deputy National Chairman of the party, who is challenging the legitimacy of Mark and Aregbesola’s emergence as party leaders.
He argued that their appointments contravened the party’s constitution and the Electoral Act, and urged the court to restrain them from parading themselves as national chairman and national secretary.
Justice Nwite had earlier declined to grant an ex parte motion filed by Gombe, instead directing that all parties be put on notice to show cause why the application should not be granted.
Dissatisfied, the Mark-led leadership approached the Court of Appeal, challenging the jurisdiction of the trial court.
The appellate court subsequently ordered parties to maintain the status quo pending the determination of the case.
Meanwhile, both Mark-led NWC and the factional national chairman, Bala Gombe, have disowned a rival group loyal to the party’s 2023 presidential candidate, Dumebi Kachikwu, describing its members as impostors.
Bala said he was unaware of any National Executive Committee meeting allegedly held by the rival faction, stressing that such a gathering could not stand.
He said, “That’s quite surprising. I’d like to categorically state that any NEC meeting purportedly held by that group is illegitimate and doesn’t represent the true voice of the ADC.
“We weren’t aware of any such meeting, and it’s likely a desperate attempt to undermine our ongoing legal processes.
“Those individuals seen aren’t legitimate members of ADC; they’ve been expelled from the party. As such, they lack the authority to convene any meetings, let alone a party NEC meeting.
“Regarding the mini-convention held in Zaria in 2022, it’s worth noting that INEC was duly notified and monitored the process. We complied fully with all administrative procedures and guidelines to ensure the credibility and transparency of the exercise.
“We maintain that INEC’s decision to freeze relations with ADC is premature and unjustified. We’re engaging with INEC and awaiting the outcome of our court case.
“Any statement supporting INEC’s stance is a misrepresentation of our party’s position. We’ll continue to assert our rights and interests as a registered political party.”
Also reacting, the party’s National Publicity Secretary, Abdullahi, described members of the rival camp as opportunists attempting to exploit the party’s internal challenges.
“They are being opportunistic. But out of the 37 chairmen, how many of them were in that meeting? It is a case of when you face a big challenge, smaller ones will see it as an opportunity to take advantage of you.
“Some of these chairmen have gone to court in the last few weeks, but they could not see it through because the majority of the chairmen dissociated themselves from their action.
“Now, they have a ring leader and a rallying point under someone who has long been expelled from the party. I know a few of them who are reasonable and are being misguided; I hope they retrace their steps on time.
“In the end, it doesn’t matter whether they have now constituted themselves as INEC’s supporters club. In the end, it is the court that will decide.”
The latest development follows a fresh twist in the protracted crisis within the party, after the Kachikwu-backed faction publicly endorsed INEC’s decision to withdraw recognition from the Mark-led leadership.
Earlier, at a press conference in Abuja, the group declared support for INEC’s action, which it said complied with a Court of Appeal judgment.
The faction also rejected the leadership of Bala, insisting he did not emerge through any credible or known process, while accusing Nwosu of attempting to hand over the party structure to non-members allegedly aligned with Mark.
The group, comprising some state chairmen, claimed it held a valid NEC meeting at Kachikwu’s Abuja office, where it took key decisions and produced a new leadership structure.
In a communiqué read by its publicity secretary, Obinna Don Norman, the faction argued that Mark and members of his executive were not qualified to lead the party, having failed to meet the constitutional requirement of two years’ membership.
