The Federal High Court in Abuja has refused to grant an urgent request aimed at stopping Senator Ireti Kingibe from participating in the activities of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), in what has become a closely watched ADC dispute involving party leadership at the ward level in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).
Delivering his ruling, Justice Peter Lifu made it clear that the court would not issue an order with far-reaching consequences without first hearing from the senator, who is at the centre of the ADC dispute.
The judge stressed that fairness and due process must guide judicial decisions, especially in politically sensitive matters involving elected officials and party structures.
According to the court, granting such an application without hearing the defendant would violate fundamental principles of justice.
Justice Lifu explained that both sides in the ADC dispute must be given equal opportunity to present their arguments before any interim decision is taken.
The case, marked FHC/ABJ/CV/539/2026, was filed by Okezuo Godfrey Anayo and Isaiah Ojonugwa Samuel, who claim to represent members of the ADC in Wuse Ward, Abuja.
Through their lawyer, Senior Advocate of Nigeria Kolawole Olowookere, the plaintiffs sought an interim injunction to restrain Senator Kingibe from acting as a member of the party pending the final determination of the case.
Their application specifically asked the court to stop the senator from attending party meetings, carrying out political functions, or interfering in the internal administration of the ward.
They also requested that she be barred from accessing party registers and official documents, arguing that such access could complicate the ongoing ADC dispute.
At the heart of the matter is the plaintiffs’ claim that Senator Kingibe was suspended on March 10, 2026, by the Wuse Ward Executive Committee over alleged misconduct.
The allegations include anti-party activities, gross misconduct, and the alleged seizure of official ward documents.
According to the plaintiffs, the suspension followed laid-down procedures in the ADC constitution and was endorsed by a two-thirds majority of the ward’s executive members.
They argued that the decision was legitimate and binding, forming the basis of the ongoing ADC dispute now before the court.
Despite this suspension, the plaintiffs alleged that the senator continued to present herself as an active party member.
They accused her of organising parallel meetings, issuing public statements, and engaging with party stakeholders in ways that undermine the authority of the ward leadership.
They further claimed that her actions included the use of security personnel to intimidate members of the ward executive, a development they described as disruptive and contrary to the party’s internal disciplinary framework.
For them, the court’s intervention was necessary to restore order and uphold party discipline within the context of the ADC dispute.
However, the court declined to grant the ex-parte application, noting that such a request could not be fairly considered without input from the senator.
Justice Lifu instead ordered that all relevant court processes be served on her to allow for a proper response.
The judge reiterated that courts must exercise caution when dealing with internal party disagreements, particularly where the rights and political standing of elected officials are involved.
He emphasised that the judiciary is not meant to take sides prematurely in disputes that require full examination of facts.
Following the ruling, the court fixed April 20, 2026, as the date for all parties to appear and present their arguments.
The adjournment is expected to provide an opportunity for both the plaintiffs and the defendant to fully address the issues raised in the ADC dispute.
Meanwhile, developments in court indicated that the senator is already preparing a legal response.
A lawyer, Abubakar Marshall, appeared before the court claiming to represent Senator Kingibe and informed the judge that a preliminary objection had been filed challenging the suit.
According to him, the objection questions the competence of the case and seeks to have it dismissed.
He also noted that the plaintiffs’ legal team had been duly served with the relevant documents, signalling that the legal battle over the ADC dispute is set to intensify in the coming weeks.
Political observers say the case highlights the recurring tensions within party structures at the grassroots level, where disputes over authority, discipline, and control often escalate into legal battles.
The outcome of the case could have implications not only for the parties involved but also for how similar disputes are handled within political organisations.
Ireport247news