Newday Reporters

Supreme Court Reserves Judgment in PDP, ADC Leadership Crises as Party Factions Await Verdict

The Supreme Court of Nigeria on Thursday reserved judgment in a series of appeals and cross-appeals stemming from ongoing leadership disputes within the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the African Democratic Congress (ADC), after hearing arguments from all parties involved.
The apex court did not announce a date for delivering its rulings, a development with significant implications for the rival factions in both political parties.
In the PDP, earlier court decisions have already altered the party’s leadership structure. Judgments nullified the Ibadan national convention that produced Kabiru Turaki as national chairman and upheld the suspension of several key officials. Consequently, the faction aligned with the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, and currently recognised by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), remains in control pending the Supreme Court’s final decision.
The situation appears more complex within the ADC, where none of the three competing factions—led by David Mark, Nafiu Bala Gombe, and Ogga Temitope—is currently recognised by INEC.
All registered political parties have until May 10 to submit their updated membership registers to INEC to remain eligible to field candidates in the 2027 general elections. This timeline places the ADC at risk of exclusion from the ballot if the Supreme Court fails to deliver its judgment before the deadline.
Following proceedings, the Turaki-led PDP faction expressed confidence in the judiciary. In a statement issued by its National Publicity Secretary, Ini Ememobong, the group said it expected a fair ruling.
The Court of Appeal had earlier affirmed Federal High Court judgments that nullified the PDP’s Ibadan convention and upheld the suspension of party officials, including Samuel Anyanwu and A.K. Ajibade. Dissatisfied, the Wike-backed PDP faction approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the lower courts lacked jurisdiction, as the matter concerned internal party affairs.
In response, the opposing camp led by Anyanwu filed a cross-appeal, urging the apex court to overturn aspects of the judgment that sustained the suspensions.
Ememobong stated that all parties had adopted their legal processes and that judgment had been reserved to a later date to be communicated to counsel. He urged party members to remain hopeful, expressing confidence that the court’s decision would strengthen Nigeria’s multi-party democratic system.
In the ADC case, the faction led by David Mark also expressed optimism. Speaking after the hearing, the group’s National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, said the party was hopeful of a favourable and timely ruling.
The appeal, filed by Mark, seeks to overturn a March 12 Court of Appeal judgment, which he argued was contrary to justice. He maintained that the appellate court overstepped its bounds by ordering the maintenance of the status quo in a suit initiated by aggrieved members led by Gombe.
Mark contended that the dispute is an internal party matter and therefore not subject to judicial intervention. His legal team, headed by Jubril Okutepa, SAN, reiterated this position during arguments before the court.
Although INEC did not file any submissions in support or opposition to the appeal, other respondents urged the court to dismiss the case, insisting that the trial court acted within its jurisdiction.
INEC had earlier removed Mark and the party’s national secretary, Rauf Aregbesola, from its official records on April 1, citing the Court of Appeal’s directive to maintain the status quo. The commission stated it would not recognise any faction until the dispute is conclusively resolved.
Despite this, the ADC has indicated plans to proceed with its scheduled national convention.
Meanwhile, Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court in Abuja adjourned indefinitely the substantive suit filed by Gombe challenging the Mark-led leadership. The judge said continuing proceedings while a related appeal is pending before the Supreme Court would amount to judicial overreach.

Stories you may like