The David Mark-led leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) has prayed the Federal High Court in Abuja to reverse the decision of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
The electoral body had, on April 1, 2026 officially removed the names of Mark (National Chairman) and Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola (National Secretary) of the ADC from its official portal and website.
Mark also urged Justice Emeka Nwite to make an order of mandatory injunction setting aside INEC’s refusal to attend or monitor the ADC’s congresses or convention, pending the hearing and determination of the instant suit as well as an order of mandatory injunction directing INEC to forthwith restore and maintain the names of all ADC’s National Working Committee (NWC) in its records and portal, prior to the institution of the suit, and pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.
The motion on notice filed on April 7 by Mark’s counsel, Sulaiman Usman, SAN was in reaction to the March 12 Court of Appeal’s judgment in a suit instituted by Hon Nafiu Bala Gombe before Justice Nwite.
The motion by the former Senate President, who is the embattled national chairman of ADC, seeks “An order of mandatory injunction, setting aside the decision, act, or directive of the respondent removing the names of the applicant’s National Working Committee from its official portal and the decision of refusal to attend or monitor the applicant’s congresses or convention pending the hearing and determination of this suit.
“An order of mandatory injunction, directing INEC (the 4th respondent) to forthwith restore and maintain records and portal, the names of Senator David Mark as National Chairman and Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola as National Secretary, as well as all members of the National Executive Committee of the 1st defendant (ADC), as they were, prior to the institution of this suit, pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.
“An order of injunction, restraining the 4th defendant (INEC), whether by itself, its agents, privies or servants, from removing, altering, tampering with, or otherwise interfering with the said leadership records of the 1st defendant, recognising or giving effect to any contrary or competing claims, pending the final determination of this suit.”
In the motion hinged on seven-grounds of argument, the lawyer submitted that the Court of Appeal, in its ruling delivered on March 12, ordered the parties to maintain status quo ante bellum and argued further that, the “status quo ante bellum” referred to the last lawful, uncontested state of affairs prior to the institution of the suit.
He said, “As at 2nd September, 2025, when this action was instituted, the 2nd defendant (Senator David Mark) was the recognised National Chairman of the 1st defendant. The said leadership structure had already been constituted.
“The plaintiff had already resigned his prior office and had no subsisting role within the party,” he submitted, stating further stated that, INEC, acting under a misapprehension of the Court of Appeal order, removed the names of the said leadership from its portal.
According to the lawyer, INEC then adopted a position of non -recognition and created a vacuum in the leadership structure of ADC,
actions, he said, were inconsistent with the true meaning of the Court of Appeal order, capable of rendering the subject matter of the suit nugatory and prejudicial to Mark and Aregbesola.
“The law is settled that a mandatory injunction may be granted at an interlocutory stage to restore a party to the position wrongfully altered. This is a proper case for the exercise of the equitable jurisdiction of this honourable court,” the senior lawyer submitted.
Also, in another motion on notice dated April 2 but filed April 7 on Mark’s behalf, the lawyer sought an order granting accelerated hearing of the suit.
Usman, who prayed the court for an order abridging the time within which the parties are to file and exchange all processes in the suit, also sought an order directing that the suit be heard on day-to-day basis until its final determination.
On why the case should be given accelerated hearing, the lawyer said that, the suit had raised fundamental issues affecting the leadership structure of the ADC, a registered political party.
He said the subject matter of the suit has far-reaching implications for democratic governance and political participation adding that, the Court of Appeal has already directed that the matter be heard expeditiously.
He said the present uncertainty surrounding the leadership of the ADC is affecting its internal administration, impeding its participation in political activities and creating avoidable institutional confusion.
Usman further said, the continued pendency of the suit is capable of rendering the subject matter nugatory, encouraging parallel structures and conflicting claims and that, the court has the power to accelerate proceedings in deserving cases, noting that, it is in the interest of justice to determine the matter without delay.
It would be recalled that, Justice Nwite had, on September 4, last year, declined to grant an application seeking to stop David Mark-led leadership of the ADC, pending the hearing of the substantive suit.
The judge had refused the three prayers canvased in the ex-parte motion filed by Mr Gombe, a former Deputy National Chairman of ADC, and moved by his lawyer, Michael Agber. Rather, the judge directed Gombe, the plaintiff in the suit, to put all the defendants on notice to show cause why the motion should not be granted and then adjourned the matter till l September 15, 2025, for the defendants to show cause.
However, the Mark-led ADC approached the Appeal Court to challenge the trial court’s jurisdictional power to hear the suit and the appellate court ordered the parties to go back to the trial court and maintained status quo ante bellum pending the determination of the case.
Gombe, in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025, had sued ADC, Mark, Aregbesola, INEC and Chief Ralph Nwosu who was the former ADC national chairman who stepped down for David Mark leadership as 1st to 5th defendants respectively.
END
Comments