A legal challenge aimed at ousting Senator David Mark and Rauf Aregbesola from their respective positions as national chairman and national secretary of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) encountered a procedural hurdle on Monday, September 18, 2025, at the Federal High Court in Abuja. The case, brought forward by Nafiu Bala Gombe, a former deputy national chairman of the party, was stalled due to improper service of court documents on the defendants, a critical requirement under legal procedure. Justice Emeka Nwite, the presiding judge, instructed the plaintiff to correctly serve the defendants and subsequently adjourned the proceedings until September 30, 2025, to allow for proper service and subsequent hearing of the matter.
The lawsuit, identified as FHC/ABJ/CD/1819/2025, lists the ADC, Senator David Mark, Rauf Aregbesola, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), and Chief Ralph Nwosu as the first to fifth defendants, respectively. Gombe’s primary objective is to obtain an interim injunction preventing INEC from recognizing Mark and Aregbesola as the legitimate leaders of the ADC until the substantive suit is determined. He also seeks to restrain Mark and Aregbesola from presenting themselves as the party’s national chairman and secretary, pending the court’s decision.
Gombe’s legal action unfolds against the backdrop of internal disputes within the ADC, highlighting factional struggles for control of the party machinery. His ex parte motion, dated and filed on September 2, 2025, outlines three key requests for the court’s intervention: an interim injunction against INEC recognizing Mark and Aregbesola; an injunction preventing Mark and Aregbesola from acting as national chairman and secretary; and a broader injunction against INEC dealing with Mark, Aregbesola, or their representatives until the court resolves the main lawsuit. These requests underscore Gombe’s contention that the current leadership structure is illegitimate.
The ADC, represented by Shaibu Aruwa, filed a preliminary objection, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. Aruwa’s main arguments center on the notion that the case deals with internal party affairs, a domain he asserts is outside the purview of the court. He further claims that the lawsuit is frivolous and constitutes an abuse of court processes. This preliminary objection represents the ADC’s initial legal strategy to have the case dismissed before it proceeds to a full hearing.
At the resumed hearing on Monday, only the ADC and INEC were represented by legal counsel. Conspicuously absent were Mark, Aregbesola, and Nwosu, despite having been summoned to appear at the previous court session to explain their positions. This absence further complicates the proceedings and contributes to the delay caused by improper service. The judge’s insistence on proper service underscores the importance of adherence to due process, ensuring all parties are formally notified and given the opportunity to respond to the allegations.
The sequence of events leading up to Monday’s hearing reveals a series of legal maneuvers. Justice Nwite, on September 4, 2025, had refused Gombe’s initial application for an interim injunction against the Mark-led leadership. Instead, he instructed Gombe to formally notify all defendants and provide them with an opportunity to respond to the motion. This procedural step was a necessary precursor to a full hearing on the merits of the case.
During the Monday hearing, Gombe’s counsel, Michael Agber, informed the court that all parties had been served, albeit with Mark, Aregbesola, and Nwosu being served indirectly through the ADC. Aruwa, representing the ADC, immediately challenged this mode of service, arguing that without a specific court order authorizing joint service, the defendants had not been properly served. Justice Nwite concurred with Aruwa’s objection, highlighting a procedural flaw that necessitates re-service of the court documents. This reinforces the principle of ensuring fairness and giving all parties adequate opportunity to prepare their defense.
The proceedings further revealed that the ADC had filed a memorandum of conditional appearance, an affidavit, and a written address alongside its preliminary objection on September 12, 2025. INEC’s counsel, Kingsley Magbuin, confirmed receiving the plaintiff’s originating process and having filed an affidavit in response, but noted that INEC had not yet been served with the plaintiff’s motion on notice. Justice Nwite then directed Agber to serve Magbuin in the open court, which he did. With the procedural issues of service addressed, the judge adjourned the matter until September 30, 2025, paving the way for a substantive hearing if proper service is effected on all defendants. The adjournment allows time for the defendants to prepare their responses and for the court to consider the preliminary objection raised by the ADC.
