The Supreme Court of Nigeria on Wednesday reserved judgment in an appeal filed by David Mark, who is currently laying claim to the national chairmanship of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), in a case challenging the jurisdiction of courts over internal party matters.
A five-member panel of the apex court, led by Garba Mohammed, announced that judgment would be delivered at a later date after hearing arguments from all parties involved in the dispute.
The case marks a significant development in the protracted leadership crisis within the ADC, which has seen rival factions contest control of the party structure ahead of the 2027 general elections.
During proceedings, counsel to Mark, Jibrin Okutepa, urged the court to allow the appeal and set aside earlier rulings by lower courts. He argued that the issue at hand had already been conclusively determined by the Supreme Court in a previous judgment delivered on March 21, 2025.
According to Okutepa, the apex court had clearly held in that ruling that courts lack jurisdiction to entertain disputes relating to the internal affairs of political parties. He maintained that the ongoing case falls squarely within that category and should therefore not have been entertained by the Federal High Court in Abuja.
He further contended that by proceeding to hear the matter, the lower court acted outside its constitutional powers, and its decision should be nullified.
“The Supreme Court has already settled this issue. No court has jurisdiction to interfere in the internal affairs of political parties,” Okutepa argued, insisting that the suit challenging Mark’s leadership of the ADC ought to have been struck out at the trial stage.
However, counsel to the first respondent, Nafiu Gombe, Robert Emukpero, opposed the appeal and urged the apex court to uphold the decisions of the lower courts.
Emukpero argued that Mark’s appeal lacked merit and was procedurally flawed. He noted that the Court of Appeal had earlier dismissed the challenge on the grounds that it was premature and filed without obtaining the necessary leave of the trial court.
He therefore asked the Supreme Court to affirm the appellate court’s decision and allow the substantive case to proceed at the trial level.
The dispute had earlier been considered by the Court of Appeal Nigeria, which dismissed Mark’s application challenging the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. The appellate court described the move as premature, noting that the matter had not been fully determined at the trial court.
In its ruling, the Court of Appeal directed that the case be returned to the Federal High Court for accelerated hearing, while also ordering all parties to maintain the status quo pending the determination of the substantive issues.
Following that directive, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) reportedly withdrew recognition of the ADC leadership faction led by Mark, pending the outcome of the legal proceedings.
Dissatisfied with both the appellate court’s ruling and the implications of the status quo order, Mark approached the Supreme Court to challenge the decisions, arguing that they were inconsistent with established legal principles regarding party autonomy.
The leadership tussle within the ADC has deepened in recent months, with multiple factions laying claim to the party’s national structure. The dispute has also led to parallel activities and conflicting decisions, raising concerns about the party’s readiness for upcoming electoral contests.
Legal analysts say the Supreme Court’s eventual ruling could have far-reaching implications, not only for the ADC but also for the broader question of judicial intervention in the internal affairs of political parties in Nigeria.
At the heart of the case is the long-standing legal principle that political parties, as voluntary associations, have the right to manage their internal processes without interference from the courts, except in limited circumstances.
However, courts have, in some instances, intervened where issues of constitutional compliance, due process, or statutory obligations are involved, creating a complex legal landscape that the apex court is now expected to clarify further.
After listening to arguments from both sides, Justice Garba Mohammed announced that judgment had been reserved, with a date to be communicated to the parties in due course.
Observers say the decision of the Supreme Court will be closely watched, as it is expected to determine not only the immediate leadership question within the ADC but also set a precedent for how similar disputes are handled in the future.
Until the judgment is delivered, the uncertainty surrounding the leadership of the African Democratic Congress is likely to persist, with stakeholders awaiting clarity from the nation’s highest court.
