…as Nafiu Bala seeks to change judge
A federal high court in Abuja has adjourned indefinitely a suit filed by Nafiu Bala, a former deputy national chairman of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), challenging David Mark’s leadership of the party.
At the commencement of the court session on Friday, Luka Musa Haruna, counsel to Bala, informed the court about the judgment of the supreme court delivered on April 30.
Haruna said the supreme court dismissed the appeal for lack of merit and also set aside the court of appeal’s order staying proceedings in the substantive suit.
The lawyer, however, disclosed that the plaintiff had, through a letter dated May 4, 2026, applied to the chief judge of the federal high court for the transfer of the case to another judge.
He said the letter had already been transmitted to the court registrar and prayed Emeka Nwite to await the administrative decision of the chief judge.
The request was vehemently opposed by lawyers to the defendants, accusing the plaintiff of attempting to frustrate the accelerated hearing earlier ordered by the court of appeal and upheld by the apex court.
Realwan Okpanachi, the ADC counsel, argued that the plaintiff had misrepresented the outcome of the supreme court judgment.
He faulted the plaintiff for “ambushing” the defendants with the transfer request.
According to him, the letter requesting the transfer of the case has not been served on them.
READ ALSO:
- ADC is dead, says Akpabio as he reacts to wave of defections in National Assembly
- INEC opposes move to deregister ADC
- 17 Reps dump ADC for NDC
- Rhodes-Vivour: I’ll remain in ADC
“As it is, we don’t know the form or content of this application,” he said.
“We will also consider it as an attempt to frustrate the order of the appeal court, which was sustained by the supreme court.
“We make bold to say that a litigant is not allowed to choose which court or forum where his case should be decided in.”
According to Okpanachi, the only good thing the application for the transfer of this matter has achieved is that the integrity of this court has been confirmed.
“To drive home our point, this application cannot stop this honourable court from proceeding with the hearing of this matter.
“And we would have insisted that the court should go on with the hearing today if not for the fact that my lord has not been availed with a copy of the supreme court judgmemt to be properly guided by it.
“In the circumstances, it is our humble prayer that the court reiterate its order adjourning the matter sine die for the court to be properly informed about the outcome of the appeal through an affidavit exhibiting the judgment.”
Sulaiman Usman, counsel to Mark, also condemned the plaintiff’s request, describing it as “forum shopping and judge shopping”.
Usman noted that the apex court had commended Nwite “in glowing terms” for the way he handled proceedings before the interlocutory appeal.
“So my Lord, for the plaintiffs to come back to this court, and to inform us today that they have written a private correspondence to the honourable chief judge, and to hinge that to make a request for this court to await the outcome of that private correspondence, is not only unfortunate my lord, but a dangerous trend which must not be allowed to stand,” he said.
M.E. Sherriff, counsel for the third defendant, aligned himself with the submissions of the first and second defendants, arguing that substantive prayers could not be sought through ordinary letters.
In a short ruling, Nwite held that the court could not take any decision on the letter without hearing all parties.
“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 ruled.
He added that since the letter was addressed to the chief judge, the trial court could not make any pronouncement on it.
“This matter is best adjourned sine die to afford the parties properly file a Certified True Copy of the judgment of the supreme court in the interlocutory appeal in the suit, to serve the defendants with the letter addressed to the honourable chief judge, and finally to await further or any directive from the chief judge of the federal high court,” Nwite held.
The matter was thereafter adjourned indefinitely.
