A Federal High Court has invalidated the David Mark-led leadership of the African Democratic Congress and the nominations produced under it. But a disputed resignation, competing judicial decisions and questions over electoral deadlines raise a bigger issue: can Nigeria’s opposition resolve its internal battles before voters go to the polls?
Nigeria’s opposition entered November with a presidential candidate, a national campaign structure and an official place on the ballot. It now faces a judicial decision that threatens to unravel all three.
On 31 October 2026, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) published its updated final list of presidential candidates for the 2027 general election. The African Democratic Congress (ADC) appeared on that list, with former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar named as its presidential candidate and former Rivers State governor Rotimi Amaechi as his running mate.
Five days later, a Federal High Court in Abuja invalidated the leadership structure responsible for producing that ticket, as well as the nominations and other decisions taken under its authority.
The judgment, delivered on 5 November by Justice Peter Lifu, has placed the ADC’s preparations for the January 2027 election in serious legal uncertainty.
But the implications reach beyond Atiku’s ambition.
The case raises difficult questions about political party governance, the authority of electoral institutions, the relationship between competing court decisions and the ability of Nigeria’s opposition to offer voters a credible alternative to the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC).
With the presidential election scheduled for 16 January 2027, the country has just 71 days between the delivery of the judgment and polling day.
The immediate question is whether the ADC can overturn the decision. The bigger question is why an opposition party seeking national power allowed its leadership arrangements to become vulnerable to a legal challenge at such a critical stage of the electoral process.
A Court Decision With Consequences Beyond Atiku
The judgment followed a suit instituted by Nafiu Bala Gombe, a former national deputy chairman of the ADC, in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025.
Gombe challenged the emergence of former Senate President David Mark as national chairman, Rauf Aregbesola as national secretary and other members of the party’s leadership.
His argument was that the process through which the new leadership assumed control violated the ADC constitution and relevant provisions of Nigeria’s electoral laws.
He maintained that the party could not simply transfer its leadership through arrangements that did not comply with the prescribed procedures for electing national officers.
Justice Lifu ruled in his favour, declaring the Mark-led caretaker leadership illegal and setting aside the processes through which it emerged.
The consequences extended to decisions taken under that leadership, including the presidential primary that produced Atiku as the ADC candidate and nominations for other elective positions.
The court also directed INEC not to recognise or act on decisions arising from the disputed National Executive Committee proceedings.
According to reports of the proceedings, Justice Lifu dismissed 27 preliminary applications filed by Mark, Aregbesola, the ADC and other defendants seeking to have the case dismissed before its substantive determination.
The judgment therefore goes beyond a disagreement over who should occupy the position of national chairman.
It challenges the legal authority under which the ADC conducted its affairs and selected candidates for the 2027 elections.
Importantly, it does not amount to an order deregistering the ADC. The party remains a registered political organisation. What is in dispute is the validity of the leadership structure and the decisions taken under its authority.
That distinction matters. Removing a party from the electoral register and invalidating the actions of its leadership are legally different matters.
The Electoral Act Raises Questions About Party Governance
The legal foundation of the dispute deserves particular attention.
Nigeria’s Electoral Act 2026 establishes requirements governing how political parties organise their conventions, congresses and leadership elections.
Section 82 requires registered political parties to give INEC at least 21 days’ notice of conventions, congresses and meetings organised to elect executive officers or nominate candidates.
The notification must include the date, venue, time and relevant committee membership.
The law also provides for INEC to attend and observe such meetings. It requires elections into party executive structures to be conducted democratically, allowing members or duly elected delegates to support candidates of their choice.
Crucially, failure to comply with the notification requirements can render the relevant political processes invalid.
Section 84 addresses the nomination of candidates, requiring political parties to conduct primaries monitored by INEC. Section 88 also provides a route through which aspirants can seek judicial redress where electoral laws or party guidelines have not been followed in candidate selection.
These provisions establish an important democratic principle: political parties enjoy organisational independence, but they must operate within their own constitutions and the law.
The Electoral Act also contains restrictions on judicial intervention in matters concerning the internal affairs of political parties.
The interaction between these provisions is one of the important questions that the appellate courts may have to examine.
The distinction between an internal leadership disagreement and an alleged breach of statutory requirements is particularly important.
The outcome could influence how political parties organise themselves, transfer power within their leadership structures and conduct candidate nominations in future elections.
The ADC cannot simply dismiss these requirements as political interference. Equally, judicial intervention must be exercised within the limits of the Constitution and the Electoral Act.
Why the July Judgment Has Not Settled the Dispute
The ADC’s strongest immediate legal argument concerns an earlier judgment delivered by Justice Musa Liman of the same Federal High Court on 2 July 2026.
In Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1637/2025, filed by House of Representatives member Leke Abejide, the court dismissed a challenge to the emergence of the Mark-led leadership.
Justice Liman upheld objections concerning jurisdiction, the claimant’s legal standing and his failure to exhaust the party’s internal dispute-resolution procedures.
The court also made findings favourable to the defendants concerning the leadership transition.
The ADC argues that the decision established the legitimacy of the Mark-led National Working Committee and that another Federal High Court judge of equal jurisdiction could not subsequently overturn it.
The principle that a court cannot sit on appeal over a decision of a court of coordinate jurisdiction is well established.
But the existence of an earlier judgment does not automatically mean that every subsequent case involving similar political issues is legally prohibited.
The two proceedings involved different claimants and separate suits.
A crucial question is whether the issues, parties, reliefs and operative orders in the earlier case were sufficiently identical to prevent the later proceedings.
The precise terms of Justice Liman’s judgment and its enrolled orders are therefore important. Without examining the complete documents, it would be premature to conclude that Justice Lifu simply overturned an existing judgment.
Indeed, reporting by Premium Times established that the July decision did not dispose of Gombe’s separate case.
The Supreme Court also intervened in the wider ADC leadership dispute on 30 April 2026, setting aside a Court of Appeal order requiring the parties to maintain the status quo and returning the matter to the Federal High Court for an expedited determination.
That decision concerned the handling of the proceedings. It did not finally determine Gombe’s substantive claim to the party leadership.
The ADC’s appeal must therefore establish whether the latest judgment properly considered the earlier proceedings and the legal principles governing conflicting decisions of courts of equal jurisdiction.
The Unresolved Question of Nafiu Gombe’s Resignation
Another important issue in the ADC leadership crisis concerns the status of the man who instituted the latest case.
The ADC previously informed INEC that Gombe had resigned from a deputy national chairmanship position on 17 May 2025 and that the party had accepted his resignation.
Gombe, however, has disputed the authenticity of the resignation document, publicly claiming that the signature attributed to him was forged.
The controversy is significant because his claim to leadership and his legal standing are connected to his previous position within the party.
In its October 2026 examination of the ADC leadership crisis, Premium Times noted that the party’s notification letter to INEC referred to an attached resignation document, but the attachment was unavailable for independent examination.
The existence of the notification letter alone does not establish that Gombe personally signed the resignation.
Nor does his denial, by itself, establish forgery.
The authenticity of the document and the legal consequences of any resignation remain matters requiring proper evidence.
The latest judgment makes the court’s treatment of this dispute particularly important.
What evidence did the judge consider? How did the court establish Gombe’s entitlement to seek the orders? Did it determine the disputed resignation and its implications for his claimed position?
These are questions that the full judgment should answer.
The public should not be expected to accept competing political statements as substitutes for documentary evidence.
INEC Faces a Difficult Electoral Test
The timing of the judgment has created an immediate administrative challenge for INEC.
The commission published its final list of presidential candidates on 31 October, identifying Atiku as the ADC presidential candidate.
The Federal High Court ruling came on 5 November.
The commission must now reconcile its published electoral records with the latest judicial decision and any subsequent appellate orders.
This is not a minor administrative disagreement.
Nigeria’s Electoral Act 2026 places strict limits on changes to submitted candidates. Section 33 generally restricts substitution to cases involving death or withdrawal by a candidate.
Whether a court-ordered invalidation of a nomination permits any other corrective procedure is a question that cannot responsibly be answered without examining the full judgment and applicable legal provisions.
The ordinary timetable for party primaries has already closed. The submission of presidential and National Assembly nomination forms also took place months ago.
A fresh primary, a change of candidates or a new leadership convention would therefore raise serious statutory and scheduling questions.
The presidential election is fixed for 16 January 2027, while governorship and state assembly elections are scheduled for 6 February.
INEC’s presidential campaign timetable began on 19 August 2026. The ADC’s Sokoto presidential campaign flag-off on 4 November was therefore a party mobilisation event, not the beginning of the statutory campaign period.
The commission’s independence will be tested by its ability to implement valid court orders without appearing to favour any political faction.
It must also avoid creating a situation in which administrative uncertainty prevents eligible political parties and candidates from participating in the election.
Atiku, Obi and Other Opposition Leaders Raise the Alarm
Atiku has rejected the judgment and accused the ruling APC of attempting to weaken his presidential campaign.
Reacting through his campaign communication team, he questioned the timing of the decision, which came a day after his campaign flag-off in Sokoto.
He said: “The timing of this judgment is no coincidence.”
He alleged that the ruling was intended to weaken his northern support base and disrupt a campaign he described as increasingly popular.
Atiku has vowed to challenge the decision at the Court of Appeal. His campaign council has also announced plans to seek interim relief and a stay of execution.
These remain allegations by a political opponent. No independently verified evidence has established that the APC, President Bola Tinubu or government officials orchestrated the proceedings.
Peter Obi, the presidential candidate of the Nigeria Democratic Congress, also criticised the uncertainty created by the judgment.
Although he acknowledged the authority of the courts, he argued that Nigeria needed stability in its electoral arrangements.
He said: “One mark of democracy is that at all times, it is voters and not courts that choose leaders.”
Obi’s statement reflects a wider concern about the impact of prolonged political litigation on electoral competition.
His reference to the election being three months away was an approximation. The actual INEC timetable places polling 71 days after the judgment.
The Coalition of United Political Parties also condemned the ruling, warning against developments that could weaken opposition parties and undermine political competition.
The Social Democratic Party similarly criticised the decision.
Its National Chairman, Professor Sadiq Gombe, called on the judiciary, security agencies and INEC to remain impartial. The party also said it was exploring joint training for polling agents and shared situation rooms with other opposition parties.
These reactions point to a growing concern that internal political disputes could become a wider threat to opposition coordination.
Okorie Warns of Anarchy as Lawyers Demand Speed
Founding National Chairman of the All Progressives Grand Alliance, Chief Chekwas Okorie, described the judgment as an “invitation to anarchy”.
He questioned why a decision with such substantial consequences for an opposition party would be delivered so close to a general election.
“For a law court to choose this time to give this kind of ruling when all candidates are in the field campaigning for votes in the 2027 elections sends a bad signal,” he said.
His warning reflects concerns that prolonged uncertainty over political participation could increase tensions.
A partner at Tayo Oyetibo’s law firm, Paul Mgbeoma, advised the ADC to pursue an immediate appeal.
He argued that the party could not simply continue operating as though nothing had happened.
“The ADC cannot simply proceed as though nothing has happened,” he said.
But Mgbeoma also made an important distinction. The ruling did not deregister the ADC or extinguish the constitutional rights of its members to participate in elections.
That clarification should inform public discussion of the case.
An adverse judgment against a party’s leadership does not automatically mean the party has ceased to exist.
Meanwhile, Gombe welcomed the judgment, describing it as an independent and courageous application of the law.
He maintained that political organisations must comply with their own constitutions and statutory obligations.
“Political parties are not above their own constitutions, and the Electoral Act is not a mere suggestion,” he said.
APC Rejects Allegations of Political Interference
The APC has denied involvement in the ADC crisis.
National Chairman Nentawe Yilwatda, speaking through his media aide, Abimbola Tooki, described the dispute as an internal leadership problem arising from the manner in which Mark and Aregbesola assumed control of the party.
The APC maintained that experienced politicians should have anticipated the legal complications associated with the leadership transition.
Its position is that opposition parties must take responsibility for their internal governance rather than blame the ruling party whenever a court delivers an unfavourable decision.
The APC also recalled that it had experienced leadership disputes of its own.
The opposition’s allegations of political interference remain unproven. Equally, the ruling party’s denial does not remove the need for transparent judicial reasoning and impartial electoral administration.
The burden now rests on the courts and the relevant political institutions to establish the facts.
A Wider Test for Nigeria’s Democratic Competition
There is another reason why the ADC crisis deserves attention beyond the personalities involved.
Nigeria’s political parties are expected to provide the structures through which citizens organise, nominate candidates and compete for public office.
When those structures become unstable, the consequences extend beyond party headquarters.
Candidates lose certainty about their nominations. Supporters become unsure which leadership to recognise. Electoral administrators face competing claims. Voters may eventually discover that the candidates they expected to support are no longer legally recognised.
The ADC is not the first political organisation in Nigeria to suffer the consequences of prolonged internal litigation.
Earlier in 2026, a separate Federal High Court decision also ordered the deregistration of the ADC and four other parties. The Court of Appeal subsequently nullified that decision on 28 July, holding that the original case was incompetent and the trial court lacked jurisdiction.
That was a different case, and its reversal does not determine the merits of Gombe’s leadership challenge.
But the history illustrates how repeated litigation can place political organisations under sustained institutional pressure.
The immediate priorities should be clear.
The ADC must obtain the Certified True Copy of the judgment, pursue its appeal and seek appropriate interim relief. The appellate courts must establish whether the trial court correctly interpreted the party constitution, the Electoral Act and the previous judicial decisions.
INEC must communicate its position transparently and comply with valid judicial orders.
The APC and opposition parties must avoid unsubstantiated allegations and inflammatory rhetoric capable of undermining public confidence.
Above all, Nigerians deserve an electoral process in which political parties obey the law, courts resolve disputes promptly and voters are not deprived of meaningful choices through avoidable institutional failures.
The January 2027 election is approaching quickly. Atiku’s immediate political future may depend on what the Court of Appeal decides.
But Nigeria’s larger democratic test is whether its political institutions can resolve disputes without allowing the battle over who controls a party to become a battle over who gets to participate in an election.
A democracy is not strengthened merely because its courts issue judgments. It is strengthened when those judgments are legally sound, transparently explained, promptly reviewed where necessary and applied without political favour.
Follow us on our broadcast channels today!
- WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VawZ8TbDDmFT1a1Syg46
- Telegram: https://t.me/atlanticpostchannel
- Facebook: https://www.messenger.com/channel/atlanticpostng
Join the debate; let’s know your opinion.