The Nafiu Bala faction of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) has asked the David Mark-led leadership to halt the sale of Expression of Interest and Nomination Forms pending the determination of a suit before the Federal High Court in Abuja.
The development came as the Federal High Court in Abuja adjourned indefinitely the leadership suit filed by Bala after the plaintiff applied for the transfer of the case to another judge.
In a statement issued in Abuja on Friday, May 8, 2026 the Secretary of the ADC Board of Trustees, Rufus Akanmi, said the need to stop the sale of the forms formed part of resolutions reached at the party’s BoT meeting held on Thursday.
He warned that anyone proceeding with the purchase of nomination forms despite the directive would be doing so at their own risk.
Akanmi said, “All parties concerned are directed to immediately suspend the sale/purchase of such forms pending the final determination of the matter presently before the Federal High Court.
“It is expressly stated that any person who proceeds to purchase the said forms does so at their own risk, and the African Democratic Congress shall not accept any liability or responsibility for consequences arising therefrom,” he said.
The faction also commended the Supreme Court for its April 30, 2026 judgment, describing the verdict as a landmark contribution to constitutional democracy and the rule of law within Nigeria’s political system.
Akanmi urged members of the coalition within the party and the Mark’s faction to set aside partisan interests and collaborate with the Gombe-led leadership in the interest of party unity.
According to him, such cooperation was necessary to guarantee the party’s effective participation in the forthcoming general elections and ensure the emergence of credible candidates for elective offices at the state, local government and ward levels.
“The Board hereby directs the National Working Committee to constitute Caretaker Committees in all states where the tenure of the current State Executive Committees has expired, to ensure continuity and stability in party administration at the grassroots level.
“We further direct the National Working Committee to immediately initiate processes for the convening of a Mini National Convention, for the purpose of filling all vacant positions arising from the recent resignation of certain members of the NWC, in accordance with the Constitution of the party,” he added.
Meanwhile, proceedings in the substantive leadership suit suffered another setback on Friday after Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court in Abuja adjourned the matter indefinitely.
The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025, had earlier been stalled following an interlocutory appeal filed by David Mark, which eventually went to the Supreme Court.
At Friday’s proceedings, counsel for the plaintiff, Luka Musa Haruna, informed the court that the Supreme Court on April 30 dismissed the interlocutory appeal for lacking merit and set aside the Court of Appeal’s order staying proceedings in the substantive suit.
“The interlocutory appeal of the 2nd defendant has travelled to the Supreme Court. My Lord, we are glad to inform this honourable court that on the 30th day of April 2026, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment on the interlocutory appeal dismissing the said appeal for lacking in merit,” he said.
Haruna, however, disclosed that the plaintiff had through a letter dated May 4, 2026 applied to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court for the transfer of the case to another judge.
He said the letter had already been transmitted to the court registrar and urged Justice Nwite to await the administrative decision of the Chief Judge.
“At this juncture, we must humbly pray to your Lordship to wait for the administrative decision of the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court,” Haruna said.
The request drew stiff opposition from the defence team, which accused the plaintiff of attempting to frustrate the accelerated hearing earlier ordered by the Court of Appeal and upheld by the Supreme Court.
Counsel for the first defendant, Realwan Okpanachi, who held brief for S.E. Aruwa, argued that the plaintiff had misrepresented the outcome of the Supreme Court judgment.
According to him, the apex court partially allowed the appeal and specifically upheld the appellate court’s order directing accelerated hearing of the case.
Okpanachi further faulted the plaintiff for allegedly ambushing the defendants with the transfer request.
“We have not received any communication regarding that application. My Lord, so as it is, we don’t know the form or the content of that application. Therefore, we take the approach of the plaintiff as an ambush
“We also consider it as an attempt to frustrate the order of accelerated hearing granted by the Court of Appeal and upheld by the Supreme Court,” he added.
Counsel for the second defendant, Sulaiman Usman, also condemned the plaintiff’s move, describing it as “forum shopping and judge shopping.”
Usman told the court that the Supreme Court had commended Justice Nwite “in glowing terms” over his handling of the proceedings.
“So my Lord, for the plaintiffs to come back to this court, and to inform us today that they have written a private correspondence to the Honourable Chief Judge, and to hinge that to make a request for this court to await the outcome of that private correspondence, is not only unfortunate My Lord, but a dangerous trend which must not be allowed to stand,” he said.
Counsel for the third defendant, M.E. Sherriff, aligned himself with the submissions of the first and second defendants, arguing that substantive prayers could not be sought through ordinary letters.
Similarly, counsel for the fifth defendant, P.I. Oyewole, described the application as “strange” and accused the plaintiff of inviting the Chief Judge “to indulge in judicial rascality.”
“My Lord, asking the Chief Judge to transfer that kind of case is worse than forum shopping,” Oyewole argued.
Responding, Haruna faulted the defence for attacking a letter they had not seen, insisting that the plaintiff stood by its application.
Justice Nwite subsequently held that the court could not take any decision on the letter without hearing all parties.
“Taking a decision or any action in such a letter without hearing from the defendants will amount to breach of their fundamental right in this suit,” the judge ruled.
He added that since the letter was addressed to the Chief Judge, the trial court could not make any pronouncement on it.
“This matter is best adjourned sine die to afford the parties properly file a Certified True Copy of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the interlocutory appeal in the suit, to serve the defendants with the letter addressed to the Honourable Chief Judge, and finally to await further or any directive from the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court,” Justice Nwite said.
The matter was thereafter adjourned indefinitely.
