Supreme Court okays ADC’s Mark, axes PDP’s Turaki
By Ikechukwu Nnochiri, Omeiza Ajayi & Luminous Jannamike
ABUJA – THE much-awaited verdicts of the Supreme Court on the leadership crises in the opposition African Democratic Congress, ADC; and the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP came with mixed bags for the feuding leaders of the parties, yesterday.
While the apex court in one ruling gave a temporay respite to the Senator David Mark-led national caretaker committee of the ADC, it, in another judgment, voided the Ibadan National Convention of the PDP that produced Tanimu Turaki as national chairman of the party.
The court vacated the Court of Appeal order the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, relied upon to de-recognise the Mark-led team.
The rulings elicited mixed reactions from stakeholders, last night. The electoral umpire said it will obtain the certified true copies of the ruling on ADC, study them and take appropriate actions on whether or not to recognise the Mark-led exco.
Basking in the euphoria of victory, Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, FCT, Mr. Nyesom Wike said the verdict in the PDP case has killed factions in the party.
However, Mr. Ini Ememobong, National Publicity Secretary of the Turaki group, lamented that the ruling has left the PDP without a clear leadership.
This happened on a day Attorney General of the Federation, AGF, and Minister of Justice, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, threw his weight behind a suit seeking to compel the INEC to de-register the ADC, Accord Party and three other political parties.
This was as Senator Mark said that the ADC will appeal a lower court’s ruling restraining the INEC from recognising its recent congresses.
Mark’s temporary respite
In a unanimous decision, a five-member panel of the court, headed by Justice Mohammed Garba, faulted the Court of Appeal for ordering maintenance of status quo ante bellum in the ADC leadership crisis that is still pending before the Federal High Court in Abuja.
It held that although a court has inherent jurisdiction to make preservative orders to safeguard the subject matter of a case pending before it, in ADC’s case, the appellate court unilaterally made the order after it had already dismissed an appeal lodged by Senator Mark.
“The directive or order made by the lower court suo motu, after striking out the appeal before it was unnecessary, unwarranted and improper,” the Supreme Court added in its lead judgment read by Justice Garba.
Referencing the Black Law Dictionary, the apex court explained that status quo means a return to a situation that existed before something occurred.
It maintained that the error on the part of the appellate court was in the nature of the injunction it made in respect of a matter pending before the trial court.
“It was neither a consequential or preservative order. Giving such an order in an appeal that had already been dismissed is unwarranted and the order of the lower court is hereby set aside,” the apex court panel held.
However, the Supreme Court held that Senator Mark’s appeal succeeded in part, even as it ordered the warring factions of the ADC to return to the high court for determination of the leadership case pending there.
It upheld the dismissal of the interlocutory appeal that challenged the jurisdiction of the trial court to entertain the case.
According to the Supreme Court, the appellate court was right when it dismissed Senator Mark’s appeal as legally defective.
Moreover, the Supreme Court noted that what Senator Mark went before the appellate court to challenge was a discretionary order the trial court made on the basis of an ex-parte application that was brought before it.
It held that on the face of the order, it was in favour of Senator Mark as the trial court merely ordered that he should be put on notice to enable him respond to a case lodged against him.
Although the apex court acknowledged that the issue of jurisdiction could be raised at a point in a proceeding, however, the high court had yet to reach a conclusive decision on the suit before it.
It held that while Senator Mark’s lawyer predicated his appeal on the enrolled order of the trial court, the record of proceedings showed that the judge only directed that his client should be put on notice in the interest of fair hearing.
“By the nature of the subject matter of the appeal, leave of the trial court and the Court of Appeal was needed to make it valid.
“Failure to obtain the leave rendered the appeal incompetent. The condition precedent must be met before a party can pursue a cognizable right of appeal,” the apex court added.
Senator Mark who leads a faction of the ADC that backed by frontline opposition figures, had in the appeal marked SC/CV/180/2026, sought to set aside a March 12 Court of Appeal judgment, which he said was against the interest of justice.
He argued that the appellate court exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering maintenance of the status quo ante bellum in a suit filed by aggrieved party members led by Nafiu-Bala Gombe.
Mark contended that the dispute involves a political party’s domestic affairs, in which courts lack jurisdiction to intervene.
Besides Gombe, other respondents in the appeal include the ADC National Secretary, Rauf Aregbesola, the INEC, and immediate past National Chairman of the party, Chief Ralph Nwosu.
Mark sought, among other reliefs, an order restraining INEC from recognising anyone other than him and the current national officers, pending determination of the appeal.
He also requested orders barring INEC from altering the party’s leadership structure as currently constituted and staying proceedings in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025 before Justice Emeka Nwite at the Federal High Court, Abuja, until the appeal is heard.
Although INEC did not file any process to either support or counter the appeal, however, all the other respondents except Gombe, urged the apex court to allow the appeal.
INEC had removed Mark and Aregbesola from its portal and website as ADC National Chairman and Secretary, respectively, on April 1, citing the Court of Appeal’s judgment.
However, despite INEC’s action, which the Mark-led faction has asked the Supreme Court to nullify, the ADC vowed to proceed with its scheduled national convention.
We’ll study judgment on ADC and act
— INEC
Contacted on the ruling, yesterday, the INEC said it will obtain the Certified True Copy, CTC, of yesterday’s Supreme Court judgment, study it and take an appropriate position.
When asked for a reaction, yesterday night or whether the commission will wait for the CTC of the judgment before taking any action, Wilfred Ifogah, Deputy Director of Voter Education and Publicity INEC, answered in the affirmative.
“Your last point (on getting the CTC first) will surely be the action to be taken”, he told Vanguard.
INEC recognises Mark-led ADC leadership
Meanwhile, INEC has updated its official register of political party leadership to reflect former Senate President David Mark as National Chairman of the African Democratic Congress, with former Osun State Governor Rauf Aregbesola listed as the party’s National Secretary.
The decision followed Thursday’s ruling of the Supreme Court, which vacated a status quo ante bellum order that had previously frozen the leadership question, and directed that related proceedings return to the Federal High Court.
Turaki-led PDP faction loses out
In the case of the PDP, the Supreme Court voided the national convention held in Ibadan, Oyo State, on November 15 and 16, 2025.
The convention produced the Tanimu Turaki-led factional national executives of the party.
A five-member panel of the apex court, in a split decision of three-to-two, dismissed the first appeal marked SC/CV/164/2026, which the Turaki-led faction filed to set-aside the Court of Appeal judgment that affirmed the nullification of the convention.
The court, in its lead decision delivered by Justice Stephen Adah, held that the appeal which challenged a suit filed by a former governor of Jigawa State, Sule Lamido, lacked merit.
According to the majority verdict, the appellants acted in breach of a subsisting order of the Federal High Court in Abuja which restrained them from proceeding with the planned convention.
In a dissenting judgment, Justice Simon Tsammani held that the issue of disobedience to court order was not raised by any of the parties in the appeal.
He noted that the issue was raised as an observation from the court.
Furthermore, Justice Tsammani held that the high court lacked the jurisdiction to preside over an internal party affair of a political party. Consequently, he upheld the appeal.
Justice Tsammani’s position was adopted by another member of the panel, Justice Sadiq Umar.
Recall that the appellate court had berated the PDP for defying the November 14, 2025, judgment of Justice Peter Lifu of the high court, which stopped the Ibadan convention.
The high court had barred INEC from supervising, monitoring, or recognizing any convention held without including former governor Lamido as a contestant.
The restraining order followed a suit filed by Lamido, a foundation member of the PDP, alleging he had been arbitrarily denied the chance to contest for National Chairman.
The trial court found that Lamido had been unjustly denied a nomination form, contrary to the PDP Constitution and guidelines.
Dissatisfied with the decision, the Turaki-led PDP filed an appeal to set it aside.
Dismissing the appeal, the appellate court held that the PDP had resorted to self-help and contemptuous conduct by proceeding with the convention despite the restraining order.
It ruled that the party should have sought suspension of the judgment from a higher court, rather than obtaining a favorable order from another court of coordinate jurisdiction.
The appellate court described the PDP’s action as a direct affront to judicial authority and a gross abuse of court process.
PDP left without clear leadership — Turaki Group
Speaking on the ruling, the Kabiru Turaki-led faction warned that it leaves the party without a clear leadership ahead of the 2027 elections
It said the judgment which voided the Ibadan convention also upheld the Court of Appeal’s suspension of key party figures, including Ajibade, SAN, and Senator Samuel Anyanwu, compounding uncertainty over the party’s leadership structure.
Spokesperson for the faction, Ini Ememobong, said the outcome has effectively stripped the party of a defined leadership framework, raising urgent questions about its direction and the stability of Nigeria’s opposition.
“With this split judgment… this effectively leaves the PDP as a party without a defined leadership,” he stated.
He expressed confidence that the party’s internal organs will move to stabilise the situation.
“We are certain that the existing organs of the party (particularly the Board of Trustees and state executives) will take the necessary steps to salvage the party and confer leadership on it going forward,” he added.
He warned that the implications could extend beyond the party if the situation is not carefully managed.
“This leads the vehicle of our party towards a dangerous bend, which, if not carefully navigated, may not only affect the party but also multi-party democracy in our country,” he said.
The Supreme Court, in a 3–2 majority decision delivered by a five-member panel led by Justice Mohammed Garba, upheld earlier rulings of the Court of Appeal and the Federal High Court nullifying the convention held in Ibadan.
The majority justices: Chioma Nwosu-Iheme, Stephen Adah, and Mohammed Garba held that the convention violated a valid and subsisting order of the Federal High Court, ruling that the appellants acted in contempt and were therefore not entitled to relief at the apex court.
However, Justices Haruna Tsammani and Abubakar Umar dissented, maintaining that the dispute was strictly an internal party matter and should not have been entertained by the courts.
Faulting the majority’s approach, the dissenting justices warned against procedural overreach.
“It is not the duty of the court to fish out matters to execute the case for the respondent,” they said, adding that raising issues suo motu without hearing from parties runs contrary to established judicial principles.
The ruling, while resolving the immediate legal dispute, leaves the PDP facing a more pressing political challenge: restoring clarity, authority and cohesion at the top of its structure,” he said.
No more factions in PDP — Wike
On his part, Wike declared an end to factionalism in the PDP following the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Speaking at his Abuja residence shortly after the judgment, yesterday, Wike told reporters that the Supreme Court decision has settled the matter once and for all.
“The Supreme Court judgment has now made it known there is only one PDP, and we no longer have factions. Faction does not exist any longer in the Peoples Democratic Party.”
Wike also specifically addressed the fallout for key backers of the Turaki-led group, claiming Governor Seyi Makinde’s and Bauchi State Governor Bala Mohammed’s hopes are dashed.
“I don’t know where they are going to pitch their tent,” he said.
The FCT minister reaffirmed that the convention of the Abdulrahman-led group remains valid.
That convention, held in March 2026, and backed by Wike’s camp, re-elected Abdulrahman Mohammed and other members of the National Working Committee.
Wike also said they will not admit the Atiku Abubakar-aligned group of the ADC to the PDP, describing them as electoral liabilities, not electoral assets.
ADC to appeal ruling recognition of congresses — Mark
Meanwhile, Senator Mark, has said that the ADC will appeal a Federal High Court ruling barring INEC from recognising its state congresses, insisting it will still be on the ballot for all elections in 2027 despite ongoing legal battles.
The ruling effectively halts recognition of congresses conducted by committees set up by the Mark-led National Working Committee.
Mark, a former Senate President, spoke on Wednesday night in Abuja after being briefed by the party’s legal team on the judgment of the Federal High Court.
He said: “You do not have anything to be afraid of regarding all the litigations before the party. I want to assure you that we shall triumph in all the cases, and we shall be on the ballot for every election.”
According to him, the party has already begun the appeal process and filed for a stay of execution.
Don’t celebrate yet
— Atiku cautions
Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar warned Nigerians against celebrating too early, despite the Supreme Court’s affirmation of Mark as leader of the ADC, saying the real political battle still lies ahead.
In a statement, Atiku said: “Even as we welcome the Supreme Court’s firm affirmation of Senator David Mark and the leadership of our great party, the African Democratic Congress, no one should be lulled into complacency
“This victory belongs to Nigerians, the millions who have refused to surrender their future. The road ahead remains long in our collective mission to reclaim and rebuild our country.”
Why INEC should deregister ADC, APP, 3 other parties, AGF tells court
In processes he filed before the Federal High Court in Abuja, the AGF argued that the continued existence of the ADC and four other political parties violates extant provisions of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and ultimately undermines the nation’s electoral integrity.
According to him, unless the court intervenes, INEC would continue to act in breach of its constitutional duty by retaining parties that have failed to meet the minimum requirements prescribed by law.
Aside from the ADC, the other political parties the AGF argued should cease to be accorded recognition by INEC are the Action Peoples Party, APP; Action Alliance, AA; Accord Party; and Zenith Labour Party, ZLP.
The AGF, in an affidavit he filed through a team of lawyers led by Prof. Joshua Olatoke, SAN, maintained that as the Chief Law Officer of the Federation, he is duty-bound to defend and uphold the Constitution, including ensuring compliance with the Electoral Act and other laws governing elections in the country.
“The 1st defendant has no residual discretion to retain the registration of political parties that have clearly failed to satisfy the minimum threshold prescribed under section 225A of the Constitution.
“The continued existence of non-performing political parties will inflate the ballots, burden public funds, complicate election administration, and undermine the constitutional intention behind section 225A of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).
“Any failure or refusal of the 1st defendant to deregister the 3rd to 7th defendants as political parties constitutes a continuing breach of constitutional duty, capable of being challenged by way of public interest litigation.
“Unless this court intervenes, the 1st defendant (INEC) will continue to act in breach of its constitutional duty to de-register the 3rd to 7th Defendants—parties that have failed to meet the constitutional threshold—as the right to associate as a political party under the Constitution is not absolute,” the AGF added.
Consequently, he urged the court to grant all the reliefs contained in a suit filed by the National Forum of Former Legislators, insisting that doing so would be in the interest of justice.
While INEC is the 1st Defendant, the AGF is listed as the 2nd Defendant in the matter.
The plaintiff, in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2637/2026, is praying the court to determine whether INEC has a constitutional obligation to remove political parties that fail to meet electoral performance thresholds set out in Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), as reinforced by the Electoral Act 2022 and INEC’s regulations.
It is the position of the plaintiff that the five political parties listed as defendants in the suit have persistently failed to meet the constitutional benchmarks required to retain their registration.
The former legislators stressed that some of the requirements include winning at least 25 per cent of votes in a state during a presidential election or securing at least one elective seat at the national, state, or local government level.
ADC demands INEC’s recognition, Amupitan’s resignation
Reacting to the apex court’s ruling, the Mark-led ADC called for the resignation of the INEC Chairman, Prof. Joash Amupitan, saying the judgment not only validated its leadership but also cast doubt on INEC’s earlier decision to de-recognise it, escalating the dispute into open political confrontation.
ADC National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, conveyed the party’s position and described the ruling as “a clear and unequivocal affirmation” of the party’s legitimacy, adding that it laid to rest “contrived disputes and manufactured uncertainties.”
Wabara’s BoT takes over PDP leadership
Meanwhile, the Board of Trustees, BoT, of the PDP, has assumed national leadership of the party following a Supreme Court judgment that invalidated its recent national conventions and leadership structures.
Former Senate President and the PDP BoT Chairman, Senator Adolphus Wabara, in a statement, yesterday, said the move was necessary to avert a leadership vacuum and stabilise the party after what he described as an “unpleasant judgment” by the Supreme Court.
“The BoT hereby assumes immediate responsibility for the national leadership of the party as a constitutional remedial measure to restore stability, foster reconciliation and reposition the PDP,” he added.
Anyanwu’s camp blasts ruling ‘misinterpretation’
The spokesman of the Senator Samuel Anyanwu camp of the party, Jungudo Haruna Mohammed, said the judgment is clear and settled, even as rival voices advanced a sharply different interpretation.
Jungudo, who spoke during the programme, said the Supreme Court’s decision leaves no room for ambiguity.
“And the judgment is very clear: appeal dismissed, and the decisions of the appellate court and the lower court, the Federal High Court, upheld,” he said.
He rejected suggestions that the ruling addressed issues of suspension within the party, maintaining that such matters were never before the courts.
“So, where did the Supreme Court or the Federal High Court discuss the issue of suspension? There was no argument whatsoever; it was never an issue before any court,” he said.
On status of party figures (Kamaldeen Ajibade, SAN, and Samuel Anyanwu), Jungudo pointed to what he described as shifting positions by his opponents.
“A few weeks ago they made heavy weather that Anyanwu was expelled. Today, they are talking about suspension. Which is which?” he asked.
“The Supreme Court said it has now become an academic exercise, because the convention has been held, it is of no moment,” he added.
Reintegrating 744
repentant terrorists is a sacrilege and an insult to Nigeria. A committed government could end terrorism in 24 hours. Why reintegrate those who kill without remorse? Do innocent lives not matter, while terrorists’ lives do? This policy fails every victim created by God. We know the truth; may God help us all.
—Samson Anyebe,
Financial Consultant
Reintegrating 774
repentant terrorists while insecurity rages feels like rewarding violence and ignoring victims. It’s a dangerous gamble that prioritizes pragmatism over justice. Without transparency, community readiness, or an end to the conflict, this policy creates a “trust gap” and psychological trauma. True peace requires justice for victims, not just mercy for perpetrators. *
—Heddad Uduapi,
Businesswoman
Nigeria’s reintegration of
744 terrorists is surprising. While repentance is noble, it should not erase accountability for crimes. Justice must come before reintegration; criminals must face the law before receiving second chances. Without consequences, the legal system is undermined. If spared execution, structured agricultural work can keep them productive. Accountability and rehabilitation are both essential.
—Ebuka Solomon,
Entrepreneur
The Federal
Government’s plan to reintegrate 744 repentant terrorists signals a shift toward non-kinetic strategies for long-term peace. Success relies on transparent implementation and balancing rehabilitation with security. Prioritizing justice, accountability, and community engagement is essential to prevent eroding public trust. Visible safeguards and support for victims must remain central to ensure these initiatives succeed.
—Hyacinth Beluchukwu,
CEO, Hybrid Media
The success of
reintegration depends on the government’s sincerity and the genuine repentance of ex-terrorists. Poorly managed processes risk creating national security threats and increasing social and psychological tensions for victims of terrorism. Ultimately, the integrity of those involved and the authenticity of the remorse shown will determine if this path leads toward peace or further instability.
—Olawoye K. Samuel,
Engineer
Reintegrating 744
individuals hinges on balancing justice, security, and reconciliation. Success requires thorough vetting, psychological rehabilitation, and close monitoring. International DDR efforts show that ex-combatants reoffend less when given economic alternatives and community acceptance. For the Federal Government, transparency regarding “repentant” criteria and safeguards for victims remains critical to building the public confidence necessary for long-term peace.
—Stella C. Mmobuosi,
Entrepreneur