Dare Babalola
Lere Olayinka, senior special assistant on public communications to Nyesom Wike, minister of Federal Capital Territory (FCT), has raised fresh concerns over the ongoing legal dispute surrounding the leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
He questioned the propriety of recent court filings and appeals in the matter.
In a detailed post shared on Friday via his X account, Olayinka criticised the legal strategy adopted by parties in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025: Nafiu Bala Gombe v. ADC & 4 Others, a case before the Federal High Court in Abuja in which the leadership of the party is being contested.
According to him, the suit was initiated by Nafiu Bala Gombe, who is seeking an ex-parte order restraining former Senate President David Mark and other party figures from presenting themselves as national officers of the ADC, while also seeking recognition as the party’s National Chairman.
Olayinka explained that rather than granting the ex-parte application outright, the Federal High Court directed that all parties be put on notice to respond to the claims and justify why the reliefs sought by Gombe should not be granted.
However, instead of fully engaging the substantive issues at the trial court, he alleged that David Mark and other respondents proceeded to the Court of Appeal to challenge the decision.
The appellate process in CA/ABJ/145/2026 reportedly ended with the Court of Appeal dismissing the appeal as incompetent, while also upholding a preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the lower court.
The Court of Appeal further ordered all parties to maintain status quo ante bellum pending the determination of the substantive suit at the Federal High Court.
Following this development, the parties involved escalated the matter further by filing an appeal at the Supreme Court.
Olayinka also referenced the role of the Independent National Electoral Commission, stating that the commission acted on the Court of Appeal ruling by withdrawing recognition of the David Mark-led National Working Committee (NWC) of the ADC. I
NEC, according to him, opted to remain neutral and deal with no faction until the dispute is resolved by the courts.
Despite the pending appeal at the Supreme Court, Olayinka alleged that David Mark and others have now returned to the Federal High Court seeking orders compelling INEC to reverse its decision, which was based on the Court of Appeal’s pronouncement.
This, he argued, raises legal and procedural questions about whether a matter already under appeal at the Supreme Court can be reintroduced at the trial court level in a similar form.
In his post, Olayinka posed several rhetorical questions regarding the propriety of the legal actions being taken, including, “Whether a party can file a fresh suit at the Federal High Court while a related matter is pending at the Supreme Court.
“Whether a trial court can proceed in a matter already subject to appellate pronouncements.
“Whether the Federal High Court can effectively act in an appellate capacity over decisions of the Court of Appeal”
He also argued that, based on the Court of Appeal’s ruling, the substantive hearing of the case should proceed at the Federal High Court rather than being complicated by parallel legal actions.
In a strongly worded conclusion, Olayinka dismissed the legal strategy of the opposing camp, alleging that only poor legal judgment could explain the sequence of filings.
“See enh, I am not a lawyer oo, but I have common sense, and that common sense is telling me that it is only when you have a Dino Melaye and another Online Baseless Lawyer as your legal counsel that you can be making all these expensive legal mistakes,” he wrote. (Sic)
He further added that critics of his position are free to disagree, stating that he is unfased by online backlash, which he described in sarcastic terms.
The dispute underscores the escalating leadership crisis within the ADC, as competing factions continue to seek judicial validation while also engaging electoral authorities.
With cases now spanning both the Federal High Court, Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court, observers say the final outcome may ultimately depend on how the apex court resolves the dispute.
For now, all parties remain bound by the appellate court’s order to maintain the existing status quo pending further judicial determination.
