The National Secretary of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Rauf Aregbesola, has appealed the Federal High Court judgement that nullified the emergence of the David Mark-led leadership of the party.
In a notice of appeal filed on Friday through his lawyer, Mohammed Sheriff, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Aregbesola asked the Court of Appeal to set aside the judgement delivered by Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
He listed Nafiu Gombe, the ADC, David Mark, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and Ralph Nwosu as the first to fifth respondents, respectively.
Aregbesola is challenging the lower court’s decision to assume jurisdiction over disputes concerning his emergence as national secretary and the validity of resolutions reached at the party’s 99th National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting.
He also asked the appellate court to overturn the declaration that Gombe’s four-year tenure remained valid and that he was entitled to oversee the party’s affairs.
Alternatively, he urged the Court of Appeal to return the affected claims to the Federal High Court for a fresh hearing before another judge if it upholds the lower court’s jurisdiction but considers a retrial necessary.
In five grounds of appeal, Aregbesola argued that Justice Lifu erred in law by holding that INEC’s statutory oversight responsibilities empowered the lower court to determine competing claims to the ADC leadership arising from the 99th NEC meeting.
He also faulted the judge’s reliance on the absence of a democratic election at the meeting to invalidate his emergence, citing Section 82(3) of the Electoral Act 2022 and Section 223(1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution.
According to Sheriff, Section 82(3) regulates elections to party governing bodies, including elections to fill vacancies, while Article 23(4) of the ADC constitution empowers the appropriate executive organ to appoint an eligible replacement pending an election at the next convention or congress.
“The absence of voting did not resolve whether the resolutions effected an election or an interim appointment under the provision relied upon by the appellant,” he argued.
“The lower court applied the requirements governing an election to fill a vacancy without first resolving whether the appellant’s assumption of office fell within the interim appointment power asserted under Article 23(4).”
In a separate motion filed on Saturday at the Federal High Court, Aregbesola also sought a stay of execution of the November 5 judgement pending the hearing and determination of his appeal.
The application, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025, seeks an order restraining the enforcement of, or further consequential steps pursuant to, Orders 7 and 8 of the judgement.
Sheriff said his client was dissatisfied with material aspects of the ruling and had exercised his constitutional right to appeal.
He argued that the appeal raised substantial and arguable questions of law and fact, particularly concerning the trial court’s jurisdiction and its interpretation of the ADC constitution and relevant provisions of the Electoral Act.
