The ongoing leadership crisis within the Sokoto chapter of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) took a dramatic turn on Monday as legal representatives engaged in a heated exchange at the Federal High Court.
The proceedings, which captivated observers in the courtroom, saw the presiding judge, Justice Ahmad Mahmud Gama, maintain judicial composure while carefully considering submissions from both parties.
The dispute arose when Dr Sulieman Usman (SAN), counsel to the 1st defendant, filed an application through his representative seeking adjournment due to his unavoidable absence from proceedings. Barrister Salmanu Jabo, standing in for Dr Usman, informed the court that he lacked the authority to proceed with the substantive hearing.
“I am simply standing in and have no mandate to continue with this matter as demanded by the plaintiff’s lead counsel,” Jabo submitted, adding that three pending processes remained unserved on all parties. He argued that proceeding would prejudice the case and violate the principle of fair hearing, particularly as the 4th and 5th defendants had yet to be served.
The adjournment application faced fierce opposition from plaintiff’s counsel, Barrister Mathew Bukaa (SAN), who described the plea as both incompetent and a deliberate tactic to delay justice. Bukaa insisted he was prepared for the day’s proceedings and urged the court to strike out the adjournment request.
However, Prof. Ibrahim Abdullahi (SAN), representing the 2nd and 3rd defendants, supported the adjournment application, drawing the court’s attention to Order 26, Rule 4 of the Federal High Court regulations, which grants parties seven days to respond to served proceedings.
After listening to all submissions, Justice Gama ruled in favour of adjournment to ensure all parties could be properly represented and respond adequately in the interest of fair hearing. The case was consequently adjourned to 22 July 2026.
Nevertheless, the judge imposed a N500,000 fine on the 1st defendant’s counsel as a deterrent against future applications of similar nature. Additionally, Justice Gama ordered the counsel to cover the air transportation costs of the plaintiff’s legal team upon presentation of valid receipts and other relevant expenses.
