Otunba (Dr.) Abdulfalil Abayomi Odunowo
Two judgments from the Federal High Court, one directive from the Supreme Court, and an escalating constitutional dispute: Nigeria must distinguish between an order that a case be heard and a judgment that resolves the merits of that case.
Nigeria’s democracy is once again being tested at the intersection of judicial power, political-party governance, and constitutional order. The Federal High Court’s judgment of 5 November 2026 on the leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) has generated intense controversy, especially because an earlier judgment from the same court appeared to affirm the legitimacy of the leadership headed by Senator David Mark.
The questions that follow are legitimate. Can two courts of coordinate jurisdiction arrive at seemingly inconsistent decisions concerning the same party? Can a later judgment displace an earlier one that remains in force because it has not been set aside? And when this dispute previously came before the Supreme Court, what did that court actually decide?
Those issues cannot be settled by political preference or by assuming that the earlier judgment must automatically control simply because it came first. They require a careful grasp of what the Supreme Court ordered, and of the difference between a procedural direction and a substantive determination.
The Supreme Court Did Not Decide Who Should Lead the ADC
On 30 April 2026, a five-member panel of the Supreme Court, led by Justice Mohammed Lawal Garba, delivered judgment in SC/CV/180/2026 (Senator David Mark v. Hon. Nafiu Bala Gombe & Ors). The court set aside the Court of Appeal’s order restoring the status quo ante bellum and held that the parties should return to the Federal High Court for the unresolved processes to be determined, including the substantive dispute itself.
The Supreme Court did not pronounce Senator David Mark the lawful National Chairman. It did not hold that Nafiu Bala Gombe was entitled to the office. It did not finally resolve the validity of the leadership transition that followed the resignation of former National Chairman Ralph Nwosu. What it did was direct that the underlying dispute be considered judicially by the appropriate trial court.
An order requiring a dispute to be determined is not the same thing as determining that dispute. For that reason, the argument that the Federal High Court was barred from hearing the substantive matter merely because the case had earlier reached the Supreme Court is legally untenable. The Supreme Court expressly envisaged further proceedings.
Two Federal High Court Judgments
On 2 July 2026, Justice Musa Liman of the Federal High Court, Abuja, dismissed Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1637/2025, which had been filed by Hon. Leke Abejide. The court upheld preliminary objections based on jurisdiction, standing, and failure to exhaust the party’s internal dispute-resolution procedures. It treated the dispute as essentially an internal party matter in which the scope for judicial intervention is limited. Justice Liman also made findings in support of the legality of the transition that brought in the Mark-led leadership, observing that the July 2025 stakeholders’ meeting came before the National Executive Committee meeting of 29 July 2025 monitored by INEC, and that the process complied with both the ADC constitution and the Electoral Act.
Then, on 5 November 2026, Justice Peter Lifu of the same Federal High Court gave judgment in a separate suit filed by Nafiu Bala Gombe (FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025). In that case, the court found that the emergence of the Mark-led leadership did not comply with the ADC constitution or the applicable electoral law. It invalidated the leadership arrangement and the consequential decisions flowing from it, including nominations arising from that arrangement, and directed INEC not to recognise decisions of the disputed 99th NEC meeting.
What emerges is a clear appearance of judicial inconsistency. One Federal High Court dismissed a challenge and made findings supporting the legality of the leadership transition; another sustained a different challenge and declared that same leadership invalid. But the mere existence of conflicting outcomes does not, by itself, establish that one judge unlawfully sat on appeal over another. The legal significance depends on the exact issues decided, the parties bound by each case, the jurisdiction each court exercised, and the nature of the orders made.
Coordinate Jurisdiction and Res Judicata
Ordinarily, one court cannot sit on appeal over the final judgment of another court of equal jurisdiction. An order that remains in force must be obeyed until it is set aside through a recognised legal process. Even so, courts of coordinate jurisdiction can arrive at different outcomes in separate proceedings involving different claimants, different causes of action, or different legal rights. A judgment that dismisses a suit for lack of jurisdiction may also fail to conclusively settle every substantive remark made by the judge.
The doctrine of res judicata bars parties from re-litigating matters that a competent court has already conclusively decided. It does not arise simply because two suits involve the same political party or stem from related events. The court must consider whether the issues are substantially the same, whether the parties are identical or in privity, and whether the earlier decision finally determined the relevant matter within jurisdiction.
Abejide and Gombe were not the same claimant. Gombe’s suit focused on his claimed constitutional right, as Deputy National Chairman (North-East), to succeed Nwosu upon Nwosu’s resignation—a claim of personal entitlement that may present legally distinct issues. Whether that distinction is enough is a question for the appellate court. A prior judgment does not automatically bind every later complainant merely because the same organisation is involved. At the same time, parties cannot evade a matter already decided by merely substituting a new claimant or recasting the reliefs sought.
Jurisdiction Is the Core Question
Public discussion has centred largely on which judgment came first. The deeper issue, however, is why one Federal High Court treated the matter as a non-justiciable internal party dispute, while another took jurisdiction and determined the leadership issue on the merits. There may be valid reasons for that difference: the rights asserted may not have been the same, the claimants may have occupied different positions within the party, or the legal provisions relied on may have differed. Equally, an appellate court may conclude that the later judgment misapplied the principles that govern judicial intervention in party affairs.
Those questions can be answered only through close examination of the originating processes, the evidence, the party constitution, the relevant provisions of the Electoral Act, and the certified judgments. The Supreme Court’s earlier direction that substantive proceedings should continue did not relieve the trial court of its duty to decide whether it had jurisdiction, nor did it amount to approval of whatever conclusion the trial court eventually reached.
Broader Implications and Institutional Discipline
This controversy reaches beyond the immediate parties. It touches the integrity of party administration, consistency in judicial decision-making, and confidence in the electoral process. Political parties are indispensable institutions, and their constitutions, succession mechanisms, and candidate-selection procedures must conform to the law. Courts, for their part, must exercise jurisdiction in line with established principles of authority and restraint. Uncertainty over who may lawfully act for a registered party becomes particularly grave when leadership decisions have already produced candidates for national and state elections.
INEC is in a delicate position. As the electoral regulator, it must operate within the framework of the law and of binding judicial decisions. It cannot set aside a judgment on its own simply because a party disputes it, nor can it treat the mere filing of an appeal as an automatic stay. An appeal does not ordinarily operate as a stay of execution, and filing an application for stay does not mean that stay has already been granted. Following the 5 November judgment, ADC has filed both an appeal and an application for stay. The lawful course is to seek the necessary judicial protection and an expedited appellate ruling, while obeying all orders that remain binding.
The Court of Appeal Holds the Key
The Court of Appeal must now determine whether Justice Lifu properly assumed jurisdiction, whether the earlier judgment of Justice Liman created any binding legal obstacle, and whether the leadership transition complied with the ADC constitution and the applicable law. It must also examine the scope of the consequential orders affecting nominations. With the 2027 general elections approaching, speed is essential. Delay extends uncertainty and complicates the exercise of political and electoral rights. What Nigeria needs is not a judicial result shaped by political preference, but an authoritative interpretation of the law that applies.
Conclusion: Let the Law Settle the Matter
The ADC leadership crisis presents an opportunity to reaffirm constitutional principle. First, the Supreme Court’s decision of 30 April 2026 ordered that substantive proceedings should continue; it did not finally determine who the legitimate leaders were. Second, the existence of two seemingly inconsistent Federal High Court judgments calls for careful legal analysis, not an automatic conclusion that the later judgment is void. Third, both res judicata and the principle governing courts of coordinate jurisdiction must be applied according to their settled requirements. Fourth, jurisdiction remains the foundation of the entire dispute. Finally, the Court of Appeal must be permitted to discharge its constitutional duty without intimidation or premature judgment.
The judiciary must not become a tool for resolving political contests through procedural confusion. Political parties, in turn, must not treat their constitutions as optional. Nigeria’s democratic progress depends on consistent application of the law, respect for judicial hierarchy, and timely resolution of electoral disputes.
The real issue is not which faction should rejoice over the latest judgment. The real issue is whether the judicial process will yield a coherent, principled, and legally sustainable outcome. The Supreme Court directed that the substance of the dispute be heard. A Federal High Court has now delivered a substantive judgment. It is for the appellate judiciary to examine whether that judgment is correct. That is the constitutional path. That is the discipline the rule of law requires. And that is the standard Nigeria’s democracy must uphold.
Otunba (Dr.) Abdulfalil Abayomi Odunowo
National President
SpeakUp Collective Nigeria
8 November 2026
