Rauf Aregbesola, the national secretary of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), led by David Mark, has appealed the judgement that nullified their emergence as the party’s valid leaders.
Mr Aregbesola, in a notice of appeal filed on Friday by his lawyer, Mohammed Sheriff (SAN), prayed the Court of Appeal to allow the appeal and vacate the judgement delivered by Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja for lack of jurisdiction.
In the appeal notice made available to journalists on Sunday, Mr Aregbesola, the appellant, named Nafiu Gombe, the ADC, Mr Mark, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), and Raph Nwosu as first to fifth respondents.
Mr Aregbesola “sought an order setting aside the decision of the lower court assuming jurisdiction to entertain and determine the claims concerning the appellant’s emergence into office and the validity of the impugned resolutions of the 99th NEC meeting of the African Democratic Congress, to the extent that the claims are found to be outside the jurisdiction of the lower court.”
He also sought an order striking out the claims against him and the claims founded upon the impugned resolutions of the 99th National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting, insofar as the appellate “court finds that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to entertain and determine the same.”
In the alternative, he sought an order setting aside the findings and orders invalidating his assumption of office as national secretary and setting aside the resolutions of the 99th NEC meeting, insofar as they affect him, and dismissing the claims on which those findings and orders were founded.
He sought an order setting aside the declaration that Gombe’s four-year tenure remained subsisting and that he was entitled to oversee the affairs of the ADC.
In the alternative, if jurisdiction is upheld and a retrial is necessary, Mr Aregbesola sought an order remitting the affected claims to the Federal High Court for rehearing before a different judge.
Besides, he also prayed the court for an order awarding the costs of this appeal in his favour.
Mr Sheriff, on behalf of the embattled ADC national secretary, gave five grounds why their reliefs should be granted.
The senior lawyer argued that the trial judge erred in law in holding that the challenge to INEC’s statutory oversight entitled the lower court to determine the competing claims to leadership of the ADC arising from the 99th NEC meeting.
He submitted that Justice Lifu erred in law in treating the absence of a democratic election at the ADC’s 99th NEC meeting as a basis for invalidating Mr Aregbesola’s assumption of office under Section 82(3) of the Electoral Act 2022 and Section 223(1)(a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).
Mr Sheriff argued that Section 82(3) governs elections to party governing bodies, including elections to fill vacancies.
He said that, though Section 223(1)(a) requires provision for periodic democratic elections, the lawyer said they relied on Article 23(4) of the ADC constitution as authorising the appropriate executive organ to appoint an eligible substitute pending 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.
“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, among other grounds.
In another motion on notice dated and filed on November 7 at the Federal High Court, Mr Aregbesola prayed the court for an order staying execution of the November 5 judgement pending the hearing and determination of the appeal filed at the Court of Appeal on November 6.
The motion, filed by Mr Sheriff, is marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025.
The lawyer sought five reliefs and gave a 12-ground argument.
He sought an order for staying execution, enforcement, and/or further consequential steps pursuant to Orders 7 and 8 of the judgement of this court.