Nigerian Judicial Council NJC Asked To Probe Controversial Court Ruling Sacking David Mark’s ADC Leadership
Nigerian Judicial Council NJC Asked To Probe Controversial Court Ruling Sacking David Mark’s ADC Leadership 
The groups described the judgment delivered by Justice Peter Odo Lifu on November 5, 2026, as conflicting with an earlier ruling by another judge of the same court, warning that it could undermine Nigeria’s multi-party democracy.
Two pro-democracy organisations, the Coalition Against Corruption and Bad Governance (CACOBAG) and the Campaign for Democracy and Justice (CDJ), have condemned the Federal High Court judgment which reportedly nullified the leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) led by former Senate President, David Mark.Follow Politics
The groups described the judgment delivered by Justice Peter Odo Lifu on November 5, 2026, as conflicting with an earlier ruling by another judge of the same court, warning that it could undermine Nigeria’s multi-party democracy.
The organisations also called on the National Judicial Council (NJC) to investigate the circumstances surrounding the judgment, alleging that it amounted to an abuse of court process and raised serious concerns about judicial consistency.
In a joint statement dated November 6 and signed by Kolawole Bello, Acting Secretary of CDJ, and Toyin Raheem, Chairman of CACOBAG, the groups said Justice Lifu’s ruling in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025 purportedly sacked the David Mark-led National Working Committee of the ADC and nullified its actions.
They said the judgment also affected the emergence of former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar as the party’s presidential candidate for the 2027 general election.
The groups argued that the ruling contradicted an earlier judgment delivered on July 2, 2026, by Justice Musa Liman of the Federal High Court, Abuja, in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1637/2025.
According to them, Justice Liman had affirmed the legitimacy of the David Mark-led National Working Committee, dismissed the challenge against its leadership on grounds of jurisdiction, locus standi and failure to exhaust internal party remedies, and directed the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to recognise the leadership.
They maintained that the earlier judgment remained subsisting and had not been overturned by either the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court.
“How then could Hon. Justice Peter Lifu, a judge of equal powers, on 5th November, 2026, turn himself into a Court of Appeal and upturn the judgement of Hon. Justice Musa Liman? This is an invitation to judicial anarchy,” the statement read.
The organisations argued that a judge of the Federal High Court could not sit on appeal over a decision delivered by another judge of the same court.
They cited previous Supreme Court decisions, including Madukolu v. Nkemdilim, Odi v. Osafile, Skenconsult v. Ukey and CBN v. Ahmed, to support their position that courts of coordinate jurisdiction cannot overrule one another.
They also invoked the principles of stare decisis, res judicata and issue estoppel, arguing that the filing of another suit over an already determined dispute amounted to an abuse of court process.
The groups further cited Section 173 of the Evidence Act, 2011, Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution, Article 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
They warned that allowing conflicting judgments from courts of equal jurisdiction to stand could weaken public confidence in the judiciary and create uncertainty within Nigeria’s political system.
“If this is allowed, what stops another judge of the Federal High Court tomorrow from sacking the APC leadership? This conflicting judgement, if not reversed, will set Nigeria on fire,” they said.
The organisations also accused some political office holders of acting in ways that could undermine democratic pluralism, warning against the use of judicial processes to frustrate opposition parties and political contenders.
They recalled the contributions of pro-democracy activists, including Gani Fawehinmi, Balarabe Musa, Tunji Braithwaite, MKO Abiola, Ayo Adebanjo, Yinka Odumakin and several others who fought for multi-party democracy in Nigeria.
The groups said the sacrifices made by activists who suffered persecution, imprisonment, injuries and death during the struggle for democracy must not be allowed to go to waste.
They also quoted former United States Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, arguing that courts should serve as places of refuge for people who are vulnerable, outnumbered or victims of prejudice.
The statement further recalled warnings attributed to prominent Nigerian political figures, including Obafemi Awolowo, Aminu Kano and Nnamdi Azikiwe, about the importance of an independent judiciary to democratic governance.
The groups made four demands.
First, they called on the National Judicial Council, under the leadership of Chief Justice of Nigeria Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, to investigate the conflicting judgments and examine what they described as a dangerous pattern of forum shopping and abuse of court processes.
Second, they called for an open, free and fair political contest ahead of the 2027 general election, arguing that opposition politicians should not be prevented from participating through judicial interventions.
They specifically mentioned Atiku Abubakar, Prince Adewole Adebayo, Omoyele Sowore, Hashim Olawepo-Hashim, Seyi Makinde and Peter Obi as major political contenders.
Third, they urged Atiku and the ADC to immediately approach the Court of Appeal to challenge and set aside Justice Lifu’s judgment.
Fourth, they called on the United Action for Democracy (UAD) and other pro-democracy organisations to mobilise against what they described as threats to Nigeria’s multi-party democracy.
“We who built this house cannot watch it collapse,” the organisations declared.
They insisted that the November 5 judgment must not stand, urging the judiciary to protect democratic institutions and ensure that opposition parties can freely participate in the electoral process.
