ADC crisis: Nafiu Bala writes CJN, seeks transfer of suit to another judge

Nafiu-Bala Gombe has asked the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho, to transfer his suit filed against Senator David Mark and others over the leadership dispute in the African Democratic Congress (ADC) to another judge of the court.

When the matter came up on Friday for hearing, the plaintiff, through his counsel, Luka Haruna, SAN, told the court that he had, in a letter dated May 5 and transmitted to the Chief Judge, applied for the case to be reassigned to another judge.

He also confirmed that the letter had been submitted to the registry of the court and prayed the court to await the administrative decision of the Chief Judge on the request.

However, the plaintiff is yet to serve the respondents with the letter. Haruna said, “Whichever way the Chief Judge decides, either to grant the application or refuse it, the plaintiff is bound by the said decision.”

Responding to the request, counsel to the 1st defendant (ADC), Realwan Okpanachi, referenced the judgment of the Supreme Court in an interlocutory appeal marked SC/CV/180/2026, which dismissed the order of status quo ante bellum granted by the Court of Appeal on the ground that the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to make such an order.

He said the apex court, however, upheld the order for accelerated hearing made by the Court of Appeal, adding that, “Since we have not obtained the Certified True Copy (CTC) of the judgment of the Supreme Court, we are yet to know the total implications of the judgment and what is left for this court to decide.”

He argued that it would be fair for the court to be availed of the CTC of the judgment, noting that the plaintiff, in whose favour the order of accelerated hearing was made and upheld by the Supreme Court, had not taken steps to activate same but instead sought the transfer of the matter.

Okpanachi described the application as an ambush and an attempt to frustrate the order of accelerated hearing.

He further argued that there was nothing on record since the sine die adjournment of the matter to justify any suspicion of bias, urging the court to proceed with hearing.

“We would have insisted that the court should go ahead with the hearing of the matter today if not for the fact that my Lord has not been availed of a copy of the Supreme Court judgment to be properly guided by it.

“In the circumstances, we pray that the court reiterates its order adjourning the matter sine die, pending when it is properly informed about the outcome of the appeal through an affidavit exhibiting the judgment,” he said.

Counsel to the 2nd respondent, Dr Suleiman Usman, said the interlocutory appeal had been partly determined by the Supreme Court, adding that the apex court’s decision included an order directing parties to return to the trial court for the hearing and determination of the substantive matter.

He argued that the plaintiff’s letter to the Chief Judge, which was not served on the respondents, amounted to an improper and procedural breach.

“For the plaintiff to inform us only today that he filed a private correspondence to the Chief Judge, which we were not served, to request that this court await the outcome of the private correspondence is not only unfortunate but a dangerous trend which must not be allowed to stand.

“We maintain absolute confidence in the integrity, impartiality and sound judicial discretion of this court. The letter is, in our view, a fundamental breach of procedure, amounting to an illegality and not a mere irregularity.

“It is a clear case of forum shopping and judge shopping, and an attempt to mislead the Chief Judge in view of the clear order of both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court in the interlocutory appeal,” he said, urging the court to proceed with accelerated hearing.

After hearing submissions from all parties, Justice Nwite adjourned the matter indefinitely, pending the presentation of the Certified True Copy of the Supreme Court judgment as well as the response of the Chief Judge to the plaintiff’s letter.

Gombe, the former National Deputy Chairman of ADC, had filed the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025, seeking an order restraining Mark, the embattled National Chairman; Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, the National Secretary, and others from parading themselves as the party’s leaders.

The suit has ADC, Mark, Aregbesola, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and Ralph Nwosu as 1st to 5th defendants respectively.

Gombe argued that the emergence of Mark and Aregbesola as party leaders breached the provisions of the party’s constitution and the Electoral Act.