Afa Igbo Efuna Worldwide has raised concerns over developments surrounding the ongoing leadership dispute within the African Democratic Congress (ADC), warning that any action perceived as interference in judicial proceedings could undermine public confidence in Nigeria’s justice system and democratic institutions.
The socio-cultural and political advocacy organization, which is committed to the unity, advancement, and protection of Ndi Igbo across Nigeria and the diaspora, said it has been closely monitoring the case of Nafiu Bala Gombe vs. David Mark and Others before the Federal High Court in Abuja, particularly the controversy generated by the reassignment of the matter between judicial officers.
In a statement signed on June 8, 2026, by its Publicity Secretary General, Mazi Nzubechi Maduagwu, the organization expressed concern over reports and public commentary surrounding the handling of the case and the wider implications such developments could have on public trust in the judiciary.
According to Afa Igbo Efuna, the African Democratic Congress, through its National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, had earlier raised concerns regarding the management of the matter. The party reportedly expressed apprehension over developments surrounding the case, including what it described as possible steps toward the removal of Justice Emeka Nwite from hearing the application filed by Nafiu Bala Gombe.
The ADC also questioned the reassignment of the matter while proceedings were still ongoing and linked the development to broader concerns about possible political influence within judicial processes.
Afa Igbo Efuna further noted reports in sections of the media and political commentary suggesting that the case of Nafiu Bala Gombe vs. David Mark and Others was reassigned from Justice Emeka Nwite to Justice Peter Lifu by the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho. The development has generated widespread public debate, with some observers describing it as politically motivated.
The organization said the growing controversy has continued to attract public attention and raise serious questions about the independence and neutrality of judicial administration, particularly in politically sensitive disputes involving internal party affairs and broader national interests.
According to the group, the handling of such a case, already burdened by competing political interests and internal disagreements, requires the highest level of caution, consistency, transparency, and adherence to established judicial procedures.
Afa Igbo Efuna maintained that once a matter has been duly assigned to a competent judge and proceedings have commenced, any subsequent reassignment should be approached with extreme restraint, full justification, and strict compliance with constitutional safeguards.
It argued that any departure from these principles, especially in cases involving political interests and party leadership disputes, risks undermining public trust in the judiciary and weakening confidence in the rule of law.
The organization further stated that the reassignment of a case already before a judge, without a transparent and clearly justifiable legal basis, creates an unavoidable perception of interference in the judicial process.
It stressed that in politically sensitive litigation, public perception carries almost as much weight as legal procedure, warning that whenever confidence in the courts is eroded, the authority and credibility of the judiciary suffer significant damage.
Afa Igbo Efuna said judicial administration must never become a tool that can be interpreted, rightly or wrongly, as influencing the outcome of disputes arising from internal party affairs or wider political contests.
According to the organization, the judiciary derives its strength not only from constitutional authority but also from the confidence of citizens that its processes remain independent, impartial, and insulated from external pressure. It warned that any action capable of weakening that confidence, even indirectly, carries serious consequences for national stability.
The group also maintained that once judicial proceedings are underway, continuity of the presiding judge should be respected except in circumstances clearly provided for by law. It argued that administrative reassignment of sensitive cases without transparent justification creates instability within the justice process and fuels suspicion in the public sphere.
Afa Igbo Efuna emphasized that any disruption of judicial continuity in a politically exposed matter risks being interpreted as interference in the judicial process. It noted that whether or not such an interpretation reflects actual intent is secondary to the impact such actions have on public confidence in the courts.
The organization stressed that the judiciary must remain above suspicion at all times, particularly in disputes involving internal party affairs and issues of national political significance.
It further cautioned judicial authorities against any administrative conduct that could be perceived as aligning directly or indirectly with political interests. According to the group, judicial officers are expected to operate strictly within constitutional boundaries and remain guided by the law, legal precedent, and established procedures without deviation that could expose the system to allegations of bias or external influence.
Afa Igbo Efuna stated that Nigeria’s stability depends on the consistent neutrality of its institutions. It noted that the courts, as the final arbiters of disputes, carry responsibilities that extend beyond legal interpretation into the preservation of national trust and confidence in governance.
The organization warned that once trust in the judiciary is weakened, even through perception, the damage extends beyond a single case and can affect the broader legitimacy of governance, democratic institutions, and the rule of law.
It therefore urged the judiciary to exercise the highest level of restraint in handling politically sensitive matters, particularly in a national environment already burdened by insecurity, economic hardship, and widespread public tension.
The group cautioned that any action capable of deepening mistrust in state institutions risks worsening an already fragile national atmosphere and further weakening public confidence in government institutions.
According to Afa Igbo Efuna, the judiciary must remain a stabilising force and not become an additional source of public anxiety. It stressed that every procedural decision in sensitive matters must be taken with full awareness of its wider implications for national confidence, social stability, and the preservation of public trust.
The organization concluded by calling for maximum transparency, consistency, restraint, and strict adherence to due process in the handling of politically sensitive cases, insisting that the independence, neutrality, and credibility of the judiciary remain essential to safeguarding democracy and maintaining national stability.
