ADC accuses Gombe of judge-shopping in suit against Mark-led NWC

The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has accused lawyers to Nafiu Bala Gombe of attempting to manipulate the judiciary by seeking the reassignment of a suit challenging the legitimacy of the party’s David Mark-led National Working Committee (NWC).

In a statement issued on Friday, Bolaji Abdullahi, the party’s National Publicity Secretary, described the move as “curious and laughable”, arguing that a plaintiff seeking justice should not be running away from a speedy hearing of his own case.

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Friday again adjourned indefinitely the suit filed by an ADC chieftain, Nafiu Bala Gombe, challenging the party’s leadership under former Senate President David Mark.

Justice Emeka Nwite adjourned the matter sine die after the plaintiff informed the court that he had applied to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court for the transfer of the case to another judge.

The suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025 has generated a fresh leadership crisis within the ADC following the emergence of Mark and former Osun State governor Rauf Aregbesola in the party’s leadership structure.

Read also: Funso Doherty dumps ADC again, joins NDC amid opposition coalition split

But the ADC said the request by Bala Gombe to transfer the matter to another judge reinforces its suspicion that political interests linked to the ruling party were attempting to influence judicial proceedings.

According to the party, the letter written to the chief judge of the Federal High Court seeking reassignment of the case confirms what it described as a “sinister plot” allegedly orchestrated by political actors to secure a favourable judge.

“This is no longer about justice or the merit of the case, but about the desperation of political operatives confronted by the utter frivolity of their case,” the statement said.

The ADC further accused Bala Gombe and his associates of attempting to turn the judiciary into “a shopping mall where judges are selected to suit political schemes”.

The ADC said, “You cannot file a case and then begin to dictate which judge should hear it simply because proceedings are not going your way. No litigant has the right to choose a judge in his own matter.”

The opposition party also questioned the request for an indefinite adjournment despite what it described as clear directives from the appellate courts for an accelerated hearing.

“Instead of allowing the matter to proceed expeditiously, as any aggrieved plaintiff genuinely seeking justice would, Bala and his handlers are looking for ways to stall the case until they are able to find a judge willing to do their bidding and pervert the course of justice,” the statement added.

The ADC warned that continued political interference and alleged behind-the-scenes manipulation risk further damaging public confidence in the judiciary.