The National Secretary of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) under the leadership of Senator David Mark, Chief Rauf Aregbesola has approached the Court of Appeal to challenge the Federal High Court judgment that invalidated the emergence of the Mark-led leadership of the party.
Aregbesola is asking the appellate court to overturn the November 5 judgment delivered by Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja.
He argued that the lower court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the dispute surrounding his emergence and the leadership structure of the party.
The former Osun State governor filed the appeal on Friday through his lawyer, Mohammed Sheriff, SAN, who urged the Court of Appeal to set aside the decision and grant the reliefs contained in the notice of appeal..
In the notice of appeal made available to newsmen on Sunday, Aregbesola identified Nafiu Gombe, the ADC, Senator David Mark, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and Chief Raph Nwosu as the first to fifth respondents.
Among the major issues raised by the appellant is whether the Federal High Court was legally empowered to determine the validity of the decisions taken at the party’s 99th National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting and the subsequent emergence of its leadership.
Aregbesola wants the appellate court to reverse the lower court’s decision to assume jurisdiction over the claims relating to his emergence as national secretary and the resolutions of the party’s 99th NEC meeting.
He also asked the court to strike out the claims against him and those based on the disputed NEC resolutions if it finds that the Federal High Court lacked the authority to determine the issues.
Alternatively, he wants the Court of Appeal to overturn the findings that invalidated his assumption of office and the resolutions of the NEC meeting, particularly where those decisions affected his position as national secretary.
Another relief sought by Aregbesola is an order setting aside the declaration that Gombe’s four-year tenure remained valid and that he was entitled to oversee the affairs of the ADC.
The appellant further requested that if the Court of Appeal upholds the jurisdiction of the lower court but considers a fresh hearing necessary, the case should be returned to the Federal High Court for retrial before another judge.
He also asked the appellate court to award the cost of the appeal in his favour.
Sheriff presented five grounds of appeal, arguing that the trial judge made errors in interpreting the legal provisions governing political party administration and the circumstances surrounding Aregbesola’s appointment.
One of the major arguments centred on the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to determine the internal leadership dispute.
The senior lawyer faulted the trial judge for holding that the court’s responsibility to supervise INEC’s statutory activities gave it the authority to determine the competing claims over the leadership of the ADC.
He argued that the court wrongly relied on issues relating to INEC’s oversight functions to assume jurisdiction over questions arising from the party’s internal administrative arrangements.
The appeal also challenged the interpretation of Section 82(3) of the Electoral Act 2022 and Section 223(1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.
According to Sheriff, the trial judge incorrectly applied these provisions when determining the legality of Aregbesola’s emergence as national secretary.
He maintained that Section 82(3) of the Electoral Act deals with elections into the governing bodies of political parties, including the process of filling vacant positions.
Although Section 223(1)(a) of the Constitution requires political parties to provide for periodic democratic elections into their executive committees and other governing bodies, the lawyer argued that the ADC constitution also recognises certain administrative arrangements for filling vacant positions.
He specifically relied on Article 23(4) of the ADC Constitution, which, according to the appellant, empowers the appropriate executive organ of the party to appoint an eligible replacement pending an election at the next convention or congress.
Sheriff argued that the trial court failed to properly examine whether Aregbesola’s emergence was an election or an interim appointment permitted under the party’s constitution.
“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. 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),” he argued.
The lawyer maintained that the distinction was important in determining whether the procedures followed by the party violated the Electoral Act and its constitution.
Beyond the appeal, Aregbesola has also taken steps to prevent the immediate enforcement of the judgment while the appellate proceedings continue.
In a separate motion on notice filed on November 7 at the Federal High Court, he asked for an order staying the execution of the November 5 judgment pending the determination of his appeal.
The application, filed by Sheriff, is marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025.
Aregbesola specifically requested an order stopping the enforcement of Orders 7 and 8 of the judgment, as well as any further actions that could arise from their implementation.
The motion contains five reliefs supported by 12 grounds of argument.
In explaining the need for the order, Sheriff said his client was dissatisfied with important aspects of the judgment and had already exercised his constitutional right to challenge the decision.
He argued that the appeal raises substantial legal and factual questions that deserve consideration by the Court of Appeal.
The lawyer identified the jurisdiction of the trial court and the interpretation of the ADC constitution and relevant provisions of the Electoral Act among the issues requiring determination.
He further maintained that allowing the judgment to be enforced before the appeal is heard could affect the position of the appellant and the issues being contested before the appellate court.
The leadership dispute originated from a suit filed by Gombe, who challenged the emergence of the Mark-led leadership of the ADC.
Gombe had argued that following the resignation of the party’s former National Chairman, Chief Raph Nwosu, he was constitutionally entitled to assume leadership of the party.
He subsequently approached the Federal High Court, seeking to invalidate decisions and actions taken by the Mark-led leadership.
The plaintiff also asked the court to restrain Mark, Aregbesola and other members of the interim National Working Committee from presenting themselves as the legitimate leaders of the party.
His position was that the process through which the new leadership emerged violated the ADC constitution and relevant provisions of the Electoral Act.
Gombe consequently instituted the suit against the ADC, INEC, Mark, Aregbesola and Nwosu, who were listed as the first to fifth defendants respectively.
However, the Mark-led faction opposed the claims and urged the court to dismiss the case.
Mark, Aregbesola and other members of the faction disputed Gombe’s claim to the party’s leadership, arguing that he was no longer serving as deputy national chairman when Nwosu resigned.
They maintained that Gombe was therefore not entitled to assume the position on the basis of the former chairman’s resignation.
The disagreement eventually resulted in the November 5 judgment by Justice Lifu, which invalidated the emergence of the Mark-led leadership.