Supreme Court sends Mark-led ADC NWC back to High Court
After days of anxiety, the Supreme Court yesterday decided major political party disputes, voiding the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP)’s national convention held in Ibadan on November 15 and 16, 2025.
- Order stopping exco vacated
- Apex court upholds nullification of PDP Ibadan convention
After days of anxiety, the Supreme Court yesterday decided major political party disputes, voiding the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP)’s national convention held in Ibadan on November 15 and 16, 2025.
It also granted partial relief to the David Mark-led executive of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) in its leadership tussle.
In two split decisions of three-to-two, the apex court nullified the PDP convention that produced the Kabiru Turaki-led National Working Committee (NWC).
It held that the election was conducted in violation of subsisting judgments.
At the same time, the court vacated the Court of Appeal’s order directing parties in the ADC leadership dispute to maintain the status quo ante bellum, a decision that had prompted the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to withdraw recognition of the Mark-led leadership.
The Supreme Court, however, ordered the disputing ADC factions to return to the Federal High Court for accelerated hearing of the substantive case.
The PDP judgments arose from two appeals (SC/CV/164/2026 and SC/CV/166/2026) filed by the party, its National Working Committee and National Executive Committee against separate judgments of the Court of Appeal delivered on March 9, 2026.
The appellate court had affirmed earlier decisions of the Federal High Court in Abuja restraining the PDP from proceeding with the convention unless certain conditions were met.
In one of the cases, Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court had ordered the PDP to provide former Jigawa State Governor Sule Lamido with the necessary materials to contest for the party’s chairmanship position.
In the second case, Justice James Omotosho ordered that INEC should not recognise the outcome of the convention if the PDP failed to comply with conditions earlier imposed by the court.
Delivering the lead majority judgment in the first appeal, Justice Stephen Adah condemned the PDP’s decision to seek favourable orders from another court of coordinate jurisdiction instead of obeying existing orders or appealing them.
He described the conduct as a gross abuse of the court process and warned against the growing culture of disobedience to court orders by politicians.
Justice Adah held that once a party becomes aware of a court order, whether valid or irregular, the proper step is to obey or challenge it through the appellate process.
“This type of abuse of court process is not pardonable. Any litigant who engages in abuse of court process has himself or herself to blame,” he said.
He added that the PDP knowingly proceeded with the convention despite restraining orders and therefore could not benefit from its own misconduct.
The majority decision, supported by Justices Mohammed Garba and Chioma Nwosu-Iheme, consequently dismissed the appeals and affirmed the judgments of the Court of Appeal nullifying the convention.
However, the minority justices disagreed sharply.
In his dissenting judgment, Justice Haruna Tsammani held that the dispute brought by Lamido bordered on the internal affairs of a political party, an area over which courts generally lack jurisdiction.
He argued that the Federal High Court ought not to have entertained the suit because the PDP, being a private organisation, was not an agency of the Federal Government.
Justice Tsammani agreed that the PDP acted wrongly by disobeying court orders, but maintained that the issue of disobedience was not raised by any of the parties in the appeal.
According to him, the court raised the issue suo motu without allowing parties to address it.
He therefore allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the lower courts and struck out the originating suit.
Justice Abubakar Umar, who concurred with the minority position, also faulted the PDP’s conduct but insisted that disobedience of court orders alone should not determine the appeal.
He held that issues relating to party leadership contests and conventions are internal matters outside judicial intervention unless they involve clear pre-election disputes recognised by law.
In the second PDP appeal, Justice Chioma Nwosu-Iheme delivered the lead majority judgment and again criticised the PDP for engaging in forum shopping instead of complying with existing court orders.
She also condemned judges who make their courts available for conflicting orders and criticised lawyers who aid such conduct.
Expressing displeasure over the conduct of politicians, Justice Nwosu-Iheme said: “This is pure madness. We condemn it in strong terms. The convention is not only condemned, it is nullified.”
She then dismissed the appeal and affirmed the earlier judgments.
Justice Umar again dissented, insisting that issues relating to congresses, conventions and internal meetings of political parties are not justiciable.
He relied on previous Supreme Court decisions to conclude that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction from the outset.
In a separate unanimous judgment involving the ADC leadership crisis, the apex court partially allowed the appeal filed by the party’s National Chairman, Senator David Mark.
The appeal, marked SC/CV/180/2026, challenged the March 12 decision of the Court of Appeal affirming an earlier ruling of Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court, Abuja.
The case originated from a suit filed by an ADC chieftain, Nafiu Bala Gombe, who is contesting the emergence of the Mark-led leadership.
Although the Supreme Court agreed that Mark’s interlocutory appeal before the Court of Appeal was incompetent because he failed to obtain the required leave before filing it, the apex court faulted the appellate court for making an order directing parties to maintain the status quo ante bellum.
Justice Mohammed Garba, who delivered the lead judgment, held that the Court of Appeal exceeded its powers by issuing a preservative order in a matter still pending before the trial court.
According to him, once the Court of Appeal determined the interlocutory appeal, it ought to have restricted itself to ordering an accelerated hearing of the substantive case.
Justice Garba held: “An appellate court cannot, after determining an interlocutory appeal, make a preservatory order in respect of a case pending before the trial court.
“The order for status quo ante bellum was unnecessary, unwarranted and improper.”
The apex court consequently set aside the order, which INEC had relied on in withdrawing recognition of the Mark-led leadership.
The court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal declining jurisdiction over Mark’s interlocutory appeal on the ground that leave was required before filing it.
Justice Garba noted that because the appeal arose from an interlocutory ruling of the Federal High Court, failure to obtain leave rendered the notice of appeal incompetent.
He further held that the issue of whether the Federal High Court had jurisdiction over the substantive dispute was already pending before the trial court and should not have been imported to the appellate court prematurely.
The Supreme Court subsequently directed all parties in the ADC dispute to return to the Federal High Court for expeditious hearing of the substantive suit challenging the emergence of the Mark-led leadership.
