ADC leadership suit adjourned indefinitely over request for reassignment of judge

Proceedings in the leadership dispute within the African Democratic Congress (ADC) suffered a setback on Friday after a federal high court in Abuja adjourned indefinitely a suit challenging the leadership of former Senate President David Mark following a request for the matter to be reassigned to another judge.

The suit was filed by Nafiu Bala, a former deputy national chairman of the party, who is contesting Mark’s emergence as ADC leader. At the resumed hearing, Bala’s counsel, Luka Musa Haruna, informed the court that the Supreme Court had on April 30 dismissed an appeal related to the matter and set aside an earlier decision of the court of appeal staying proceedings in the substantive suit.

Haruna further disclosed that the plaintiff had, through a letter dated May 4, applied to the chief judge of the federal high court for the transfer of the case to another judge. He consequently urged Justice Emeka Nwite to suspend proceedings pending the administrative decision of the chief judge.

The application was strongly opposed by counsel to the defendants, who accused the plaintiff of attempting to frustrate the accelerated hearing earlier directed by the appellate court and affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Counsel to the ADC, Realwan Okpanachi, argued that the plaintiff had misrepresented the outcome of the Supreme Court judgment and failed to serve the defendants with the application seeking transfer of the case. He maintained that litigants do not possess the discretion to determine the court or judge before whom their matters should be heard.

“We make bold to say that a litigant is not allowed to choose which court or forum where his case should be decided in,” Okpanachi stated.

Counsel to David Mark, Sulaiman Usman, also faulted the request, describing it as an attempt at “forum shopping and judge shopping”. He noted that the Supreme Court had previously commended Justice Nwite for his handling of the proceedings and warned against permitting private correspondence to interfere with judicial processes.

In his ruling, Justice Nwite held that the court could not take any decision on the transfer request without hearing all parties involved, adding that the letter was addressed to the chief judge and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the trial court to determine. He subsequently adjourned the matter indefinitely to allow parties file a certified true copy of the Supreme Court judgment, serve all relevant processes on the defendants and await further directives from the chief judge of the federal high court.