The Federal High Court in Abuja has once again adjourned indefinitely the leadership dispute case involving a faction of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) led by Nafiu Bala Gombe, after a fresh request was made to transfer the matter to another judge.
Justice Emeka Nwite ordered the case to be suspended without a fixed date (sine die) following disagreement between lawyers over a letter written by the plaintiff to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court seeking reassignment of the case marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025.
The case, which has been marked by several legal disputes within the ADC, had earlier been paused due to an interlocutory appeal filed by former Senate President David Mark, which eventually went up to the Supreme Court.
At Friday’s sitting, the plaintiff’s lawyer, Luka Musa Haruna, told the court that the Supreme Court delivered its ruling on April 30, 2026, dismissing the appeal for lack of merit and lifting earlier restrictions that had delayed proceedings.
Haruna also informed the court that his client had written to the Chief Judge on May 4, 2026, requesting that the case be reassigned to another judge, and asked the court to wait for an administrative decision on the matter.
However, the request was strongly opposed by lawyers representing the defendants, who accused the plaintiff of trying to delay or derail the court process.
Counsel for the first defendant argued that the Supreme Court decision supported an accelerated hearing and that the plaintiff was misrepresenting the ruling. He also claimed the transfer request was not properly served on other parties, describing it as an unfair move.
Lawyers for the other defendants also opposed the application, describing it as an attempt at “judge shopping” and an effort to frustrate the court’s earlier directive for a speedy trial.
They insisted that parties in a case cannot choose or reject judges at will and warned against actions that could undermine court procedures.
Responding to the arguments, the plaintiff’s lawyer maintained that the application was valid and said the defence was reacting to a document they had not officially seen.
In his ruling, Justice Nwite held that the court could not act on the letter sent to the Chief Judge without hearing all parties involved.
He further explained that since the request was addressed to the Chief Judge, it would be improper for his court to make any pronouncement on it.
The judge then ordered that the matter remain adjourned indefinitely to allow time for the Certified True Copy of the Supreme Court judgment to be filed, for all parties to be properly served with the transfer letter, and for any further directive from the Chief Judge to be awaited.
The case was therefore placed on hold without a specific return date.