The Court of Appeal in Abuja has shifted judgment in an appeal filed by David Mark and Rauf Aregbesola against the judgment of the Abuja Federal High Court which stopped them from dissolving the States Working Committees, SWC, of the African Democratic Congress, ADC.
The judgment billed to be delivered by the appellate court on Wednesday was put off at the eleventh hour and shifted till July 13, 2026.
No reason was given for the shift announced on Wednesday afternoon after lawyers, newsmen and politicians had taken their seats and waited for more than two hours.
A registrar of the court who refused to disclose his name simply entered the courtroom and announced that the judgment had been put off and would be delivered on July 13, 2026, in the afternoon.
In the appeal, the ADC, Mark and Aregbesola are challenging the decision of Justice Joyce Abdulmalik which stopped them from cutting short the four years tenure of the state officers of the party.
Don Norman Obinna, Johnny Tovie Derek, Obah C. Ehigiator, Hon. Olona Yinka, Dr. Charles Idowu Omideji, Samuel Pam Gyang and Obianyo Patrick, acting as plaintiffs, had sued for themselves and on behalf of all State Chairmen and State Executive Committees of the ADC.
Their suit is marked FHC/ABJ/CS/58/2026.
Listed as defendants in the matter are the ADC, Senator David Mark; Senator Patricia Akwashiki; Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi; Rauf Aregbesola; Prof. Oserheimen Osunbor, who is also sued on behalf of the Caretaker/Interim National Working Committee; and the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC.
In an originating summons filed at the Federal High Court, the ADC state chairmen had sought judicial interpretation of constitutional provisions guiding the tenure and powers of party organs, particularly in relation to the party’s leadership and planned state congresses.
At the heart of their dispute was whether the four-year tenure of the ADC’s State Working Committee and State Executive Committee remains valid and subsisting, pending the conduct of a properly constituted State Congress and the convocation of a National Convention.
The plaintiffs had anchored their argument on Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution as well as Article 17 of the party’s constitution and a Final Mediation Report dated December 23, 2023.
The plaintiffs had contested the legality of actions taken by a body described as the “Caretaker/Interim National Working Committee,” which they claimed was not constitutionally recognized within the framework of the party.
Specifically, they are had asked the high court to determine whether such a body has the authority to appoint Congress Committee Members for the purpose of conducting state congresses.
In addition, the state chairmen challenged the validity of any appointments made by the caretaker body, describing them as unconstitutional, null, and void.
The plaintiffs further contended that the planned state congress slated for April 2026, if conducted under the supervision of the said caretaker committee, would constitute a gross violation of the party’s constitution.
In her judgment, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik voided and set aside the plan of the David Mark leadership to dissolve the State Working Committee.
Not satisfied with the high court verdict, David Mark and others had approached the Court of Appeal praying it to set aside the judgment of the lower court on the grounds of miscarriage of justice.
