A breakdown of Nafiu Bala Gombe Court case against David Mark led NWC and 4 others.

🏛️ Case Overview
Court: Federal High Court of Nigeria (Abuja Judicial Division)
Suit No.: FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025
Location: Abuja
Parties
Plaintiff: Nafiu Bala Gombe
Defendants:
1. African Democratic Congress (ADC)
2. David Mark
3. Rauf Aregbesola
4. Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC)
5. Ralph Nwosu
📄 Nature of This Document
This is an affidavit by the 4th Defendant (INEC) responding to a court order to “show cause” why the plaintiff’s application (likely for an injunction) should not be granted.
The affidavit was sworn by:
Jacob Ayuba, an INEC official.
⚖️ Key Arguments by INEC
1. ❌ Plaintiff’s Application is Procedurally Defective
INEC claims it was not served with the Motion on Notice.
Only the Originating Summons and related documents were served.
2. ⚠️ Injunction Would Pre-judge the Case
The reliefs in the ex parte motion are the same as the main case reliefs.
Granting them now would effectively decide the case prematurely.
3. 🗳️ INEC Followed Due Process
ADC notified INEC of its NEC meeting (29 July 2025).
INEC:
Attended and monitored the meeting.
Filed an official report (Exhibit INEC 2).
Acted based on the outcome.
4. ✅ Leadership Change Already Completed
At the NEC meeting:
Previous leadership (including 5th Defendant) resigned.
2nd and 3rd Defendants were appointed.
INEC:
Recognized the new leadership.
Published names on its website.
👉 Therefore, the action the plaintiff wants to stop has already happened.
5. 🚫 Court Cannot Stop a Completed Act
INEC argues:
Injunctions cannot reverse completed actions.
Recognition and publication are already done.
6. 🏛️ Court Lacks Jurisdiction (Political Party Affairs)
INEC claims:
The issue concerns internal affairs of a political party.
Courts generally do not interfere in such matters.
Exception:
Only applies in candidate nomination/primaries disputes — which this case is not.
7. 📚 Reliance on Supreme Court Authorities
INEC cites precedents, including:
APC v. Moses (2021)
Jegede v. INEC (2021)
A 2025 Supreme Court case involving party internal affairs
These cases support:
Courts should not interfere in internal party matters.
🎯 INEC’s Final Position
INEC asks the court to:
Reject the plaintiff’s application for interim injunction
Because:
The acts are already completed
The issue is internal party politics
The court lacks jurisdiction
🧠 Simple Summary
INEC is basically saying:
“We followed the law, monitored the party’s meeting, and recognized the new leaders. What the plaintiff is asking the court to stop has already happened—and the court shouldn’t interfere in party internal matters anyway.