By Salim Ashir
The Federal High Court sitting in Sokoto has adjourned the suit challenging the leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) in the state to June 19, 2026, following a procedural error in the court processes served on the defendants.
The case, which is before Justice Ahmad Gama Mahmud, was stalled after counsel to the 1st defendant, Dr. Sulaiman Usman (SAN), informed the court that the originating processes served on his client were not properly endorsed by registry officials and differed from the copies before the court.
Usman urged the court to ensure that the correct documents were served on all parties, stressing that the defendants could only respond appropriately after receiving duly authenticated court processes.
Lead counsel to the plaintiffs, Matthew Burkaa (SAN), maintained that the defendants had been served with the necessary documents but agreed that the discrepancy raised by the defence should be addressed.
Counsel to the 2nd and 3rd defendants, Prof. Ibrahim Abdullahi, also supported the position, urging the court to rectify the procedural lapse before proceeding with the substantive hearing.
Apparently displeased by the development, Justice Gama questioned how parties could have been served with unsigned documents and directed that the properly signed originating processes be immediately served on the defendants.
The judge openly reprimanded court registry officials over the oversight and warned against a recurrence, describing the lapse as unacceptable.
After the corrected documents were served on all parties, the court adjourned the matter to June 19, 2026, for hearing. Neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants objected to the new date.
The suit centres on a dispute over the leadership of the ADC in Sokoto State, with the plaintiffs alleging that the 2nd and 3rd defendants unlawfully assumed the positions of state chairman and secretary of the party.
At an earlier sitting, the plaintiffs had told the court that the action was aimed at determining the legitimate leadership of the party before the conduct of its primary elections. The court had consequently granted an application seeking an abridgement of time for the defendants to file their responses and fixed the matter for hearing.
The plaintiffs insist that they are the rightful leaders of the party in the state and are seeking judicial intervention to resolve what they describe as a struggle for control of the ADC’s structure ahead of key political activities.
