Court Adjourns ADC Leadership Suit Sine Die as Bala Seeks Judge Reassignment

A federal high court in Abuja has adjourned indefinitely a suit challenging the leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), after the plaintiff, Nafiu Bala, sought to have the case reassigned to another judge.

Bala, a former deputy national chairman of the party, is contesting the leadership of former senate president David Mark.

At Friday’s proceedings, Bala’s counsel, Luka Musa Haruna, told the court that the Supreme Court had on April 30 dismissed an appeal related to the matter for lack of merit. He added that the apex court also set aside an earlier Court of Appeal order staying proceedings in the substantive suit.

Haruna informed the court that Bala had written to the chief judge of the federal high court on May 4, requesting that the case be transferred to another judge. He asked Justice Emeka Nwite to await the administrative decision on the request.

Lawyers representing the defendants opposed the move, arguing that the request was an attempt to delay proceedings.

Realwan Okpanachi, counsel to the ADC, said the plaintiff had misrepresented the Supreme Court’s ruling and accused him of “ambushing” the defence with the transfer request.

“We don’t know the form or content of this application,” Okpanachi said, noting that the defendants had not been served with the letter.

He argued that litigants cannot choose the court or judge that will hear their cases and said the application appeared aimed at frustrating the accelerated hearing earlier ordered by the Court of Appeal and affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Sulaiman Usman, counsel to David Mark, described the request as “forum shopping and judge shopping”.

Usman said the Supreme Court had previously commended Justice Nwite’s handling of the proceedings before the interlocutory appeal.

“For the plaintiffs to come back to this court and inform us today that they have written a private correspondence to the honourable chief judge… is not only unfortunate, but a dangerous trend which must not be allowed to stand,” he said.

M.E. Sherriff, counsel to the third defendant, also opposed the request, arguing that substantive reliefs could not be sought through an ordinary letter.

In a brief ruling, Justice Nwite said the court could not act on the transfer request without hearing all parties involved.

“Taking a decision or any action in such a letter without hearing from the defendants will amount to breach of their fundamental right in this suit,” he said.

The judge added that since the letter was addressed to the chief judge, the trial court could not make any pronouncement on it.

Nwite said the matter would be adjourned indefinitely to allow parties file a certified true copy of the Supreme Court judgment, serve the defendants with the transfer request, and await any directive from the chief judge.

The court subsequently adjourned the case sine die.