THE Supreme Court is set to deliver judgment today on the leadership disputes rocking the African Democratic Congress (ADC) and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), in a development that could significantly redefine the political direction of both opposition parties ahead of the 2027 general elections.
News Point Nigeria reports that Ahead of the anticipated verdict, leaders of the opposition parties reportedly held an emergency strategic meeting on Wednesday night where they reviewed possible outcomes of the judgment and mapped out possible next steps for the opposition coalition.
However, in a fresh development that may further complicate the crisis within the ADC, a Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday restrained the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising the ADC congresses conducted by the David Mark-led leadership pending the determination of the internal disputes within the party.
Reacting to the Federal High Court judgment, the National Chairman of the ADC, Senator David Mark, assured party members that the ADC would remain on the ballot for all elections in 2027 despite the ongoing legal battles.
In a statement posted on X, formerly Twitter, by the party’s National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, Mark expressed confidence that the party would triumph in all pending cases.
Speaking on Wednesday night after receiving a briefing from the party’s legal team on the Federal High Court judgment, the former Senate President dismissed fears over the litigations involving the party.
“You do not have anything to be afraid of regarding all the litigations before the party,” Mark said.
“I want to assure you that we shall triumph in all the cases, and we shall be on the ballot for every election.”
He added that the party was fully prepared to confront the legal battles ahead.
“We are more than prepared and ready for these cases, and we shall do everything within the ambits of the law to surmount every situation,” he stated.
“In this legal battle, though I am not a lawyer, I will lead from the front, and we shall surely triumph.”
Mark disclosed that the ADC legal team had already commenced the process of appealing the judgment and had also filed an application for stay of execution.
Meanwhile, the 2023 presidential candidate of the ADC, Dumebi Kachikwu, alongside several state chairmen of the party, welcomed the ruling, insisting they would not allow the party to be hijacked.
On April 22, the Supreme Court concluded hearings on the leadership disputes involving both the ADC and the PDP.
The five-member panel of the apex court, headed by Justice Mohammed Garba, reserved judgment after hearing arguments in separate appeals challenging earlier rulings by lower courts on the disputes.
Checks on the official website of the Supreme Court on Wednesday showed that the matters listed under “Political Appeals” had been included in the cause list for Thursday, April 30, 2026.
News Point Nigeria also confirmed that judgment in the PDP case, marked SC/CV/166/2026, and the ADC matter, marked SC/CV/180/2026, has been fixed for 2 pm.
Earlier, INEC had fixed May 10 as the deadline for political parties to submit their membership registers.
The commission also scheduled the Presidential and National Assembly elections for Saturday, January 16, 2027, while Governorship and State Assembly elections are slated for Saturday, February 6, 2027.
According to the electoral timetable, political party primaries and the resolution of related disputes are expected to run from April 23, 2026, to May 30, 2026.
Campaigns for the Presidential and National Assembly elections are expected to commence on August 19, 2026, while campaigns for Governorship and State Assembly elections are scheduled to begin on September 9, 2026.
The scheduled rulings have heightened political tension and legal manoeuvring over control of party structures ahead of the 2027 elections.
The dispute within the ADC centres on a prolonged leadership crisis involving Senator David Mark and a rival faction led by Nafiu Gombe.
Mark is challenging the March 12 decision of the Court of Appeal, which ordered parties to maintain the status quo in the leadership tussle.
The former Senate President argued that the appellate court exceeded its jurisdiction, insisting that the matter bordered on internal party affairs beyond judicial intervention.
However, the respondents — including the ADC, its National Secretary, Rauf Aregbesola, INEC and former National Chairman Ralph Nwosu — urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the appeal, maintaining that the lower court acted within its jurisdiction.
The matter was heard on April 22 by the five-member panel led by Justice Mohammed Garba, which subsequently reserved judgment.
In a move highlighting the urgency of the matter, counsel to the ADC had earlier written to the Chief Justice of Nigeria, urging the apex court to deliver judgment within three days.
In the letter dated April 28, 2026, the law firm of S.E. Aruwa (SAN) & Co. warned that any delay in delivering judgment could jeopardise the party’s participation in the 2027 general elections.
The lawyers alleged that INEC had acted on a lower court ruling to “remove or de-recognise the leadership” of the party.
According to them, the development had left the ADC “without leadership at the moment, even though the ADC remains a recognised registered political party in Nigeria.”
They further linked the urgency to the electoral timetable already released by INEC, stressing that compliance with statutory requirements for the 2027 elections depends heavily on the outcome of the appeal.
“The ADC’s ability to comply with these statutory requirements to participate in the 2027 general elections is wholly dependent on the timely delivery of the judgment in the instant Appeal,” the lawyers stated.
They warned that failure to deliver judgment promptly could expose the party to “grave and irreversible risk” of exclusion from the elections.
According to them, such a development would disenfranchise millions of party supporters.
“Justice delayed, in this particular circumstance, would amount to justice denied,” the counsel added, warning that the “entire political future” of the party hangs in the balance.
Expected at the Supreme Court today are David Mark, Bolaji Abdullahi and other top ADC leaders.
Also expected are members of the PDP camp loyal to Oyo State Governor, Seyi Makinde, including Tanimu Turaki (SAN), National Secretary Taofeek Arapaja, former Niger State Governor Babangida Aliyu, Publicity Secretary Ini Ememobong and others.
From the camp loyal to the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, those expected at the apex court include the National Chairman, Abdulrahman Mohammed; National Secretary, Senator Samuel Anyanwu; National Organising Secretary, Umaru Bature; and former Jigawa State Governor, Sule Lamido.
Meanwhile, the Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday restrained INEC from recognising or participating in any congress organised by the disputed caretaker leadership of the ADC.
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, who delivered the judgment, also barred Senator David Mark and other prominent figures in the party from interfering with the functions and tenure of the elected state executives.
The ruling marks the latest twist in the festering leadership crisis within the ADC, with major implications for control of the party structure ahead of future political activities.
The case originated from a suit filed by Norman Obinna and six others on behalf of state chairpersons and executive committees of the party.
The plaintiffs challenged the legality of actions taken by the caretaker or interim national leadership, particularly its move to organise state congresses through an appointed committee.
They argued that the caretaker body lacked constitutional authority to organise congresses or appoint any committee for that purpose.
According to them, only duly elected party organs recognised under the ADC constitution possess the powers to conduct congresses.
The plaintiffs therefore asked the court to affirm the tenure of the state executive committees and restrain any parallel processes capable of undermining their authority.
In her judgment, Justice Abdulmalik held that the claims brought before the court were valid and deserving of judicial consideration, especially in view of alleged constitutional and statutory violations.
She stated that she found “the issue in the originating summons meritorious.”
The judge framed the key issue as whether Mark and the other defendants possessed constitutional or statutory powers to assume the responsibilities of elected state organs of the ADC, whose tenure is guaranteed by the party’s constitution.
She relied on Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution, which mandates political parties to conduct periodic elections based on democratic principles, as well as Article 23 of the ADC Constitution, which provides that national and state officers shall hold office for a maximum of two terms spanning eight years.
According to her, “the question is whether there is any infraction committed by Mr Mark and co-defendants when they convened meetings and appointed a body known as a congress committee to organise state congresses.”
On the defendants’ argument that the matter was an internal party affair outside the jurisdiction of the court, the judge acknowledged the settled legal position but clarified its limits.
“The law is settled that courts will not interfere. However, where there is an allegation of breach of constitutional or statutory provisions, the court has a duty to intervene,” she ruled.
“Where a party alleges that its constitution has been violated, the court is bound to adjudicate. Any argument that this court lacks jurisdiction on that basis fails,” she added.
Justice Abdulmalik stressed that political parties must operate strictly within the provisions of their constitutions, noting that any deviation from laid-down procedures, especially in leadership matters, cannot be justified under the guise of internal autonomy.
She held that the appointment of the “congress committee” was not recognised by the ADC constitution and was therefore invalid.
Consequently, the court ruled that the tenure of the state executive committees remains valid and must run its full course without interference.
The judge further ruled that only duly elected structures possess the authority to organise state congresses, thereby nullifying any process initiated by the caretaker leadership.
In a series of far-reaching orders, the court set aside the appointment of the congress committee and restrained INEC from recognising any congress organised by it.
The court also restrained Mark and the other defendants from organising congresses or conventions outside the provisions of the party’s constitution.
Additionally, they were barred from taking any steps capable of undermining or disrupting the authority of the state executive committees.
News Point Nigeria reports that the plaintiffs, led by Norman Obinna, instituted the suit in a representative capacity on behalf of ADC state chairmen and executive committees nationwide.
The defendants include the ADC, David Mark, Patricia Akwashiki, Bolaji Abdullahi, Rauf Aregbesola, Oserheimen Osunbor and INEC.
In their submissions, the plaintiffs challenged the legality of the caretaker or interim national working committees and urged the court to restrain INEC from recognising or participating in any congress conducted under such arrangements.
They maintained that under both the ADC constitution and the 1999 Constitution, the tenure of state executive committees subsists until valid congresses are conducted in line with laid-down procedures.
They further argued that bypassing elected structures undermines internal party democracy and weakens the rule of law within the party.
However, the defendants opposed the suit through preliminary objections, counter-affidavits and written addresses.