Follow Us on Google
• Presidential campaign council says judgment academic, vows appeal • Gombe celebrates ruling, accuses Mark-led group of hijacking party • Ex-ACF scribe urges respect for judiciary, says ruling is democracy in action
From Ndubuisi Orji and Godwin Tsa, Abuja and Noah Ebije, Kaduna
The battle for control of the soul of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) has intensified following the Federal High Court judgment nullifying the emergence of former Senate President David Mark and other national officers of the party, as well as the processes that produced former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar as its presidential candidate for the 2027 general elections, with rival factions trading accusations and threatening further legal action over the future of the opposition party.
While Atiku, the Mark-led National Working Committee (NWC) and the party’s Presidential Campaign Council rejected the judgment as legally defective and an alleged attempt to cripple the opposition ahead of the elections, the rival faction led by Nafiu Bala Gombe welcomed the decision as a vindication of its challenge to what it described as the unlawful takeover of the party.
The controversy has also drawn contrasting reactions from political stakeholders, with a chieftain of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), Abdulhakeem Adegoke Alawuje, dismissing allegations of ruling-party interference and urging the ADC to resolve its internal problems rather than blame political opponents.
A former secretary of the Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF) also described the court’s intervention as democracy in action, advising aggrieved politicians to pursue available legal remedies rather than undermine public confidence in the judiciary and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
At the centre of the dispute is the judgment delivered yesterday by Justice Peter Odo Lifu of the Federal High Court, Abuja, which invalidated the emergence of Mark, former Osun State governor Rauf Aregbesola and other national officers of the ADC, as well as the processes through which Atiku emerged as the party’s presidential candidate.
The court held that the disputed leadership emerged through processes that violated the party’s constitution and the Electoral Act, while also nullifying nominations conducted under the affected executives.
However, the ADC leadership insisted that an earlier judgment of the same Federal High Court had already addressed the issues, raising questions about the relationship between the separate proceedings and setting the stage for another round of litigation at the Court of Appeal.
Reacting through its National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, the ADC accused the APC of attempting to use the judiciary to frustrate opposition parties, describing the timing of the judgment, barely 24 hours after Atiku’s presidential campaign rally in Sokoto, as particularly troubling.
The party alleged that the decision was calculated to undermine the momentum of its political mobilisation and potentially deprive thousands of candidates of the opportunity to contest elective offices on its platform.
“We have reasons to believe that the judgment had long been written on this case. The Sokoto rally was simply a trigger that stampeded its delivery. Yesterday, Nigerians came out in their hundreds of thousands to demonstrate their support for the ADC and our promise of making life affordable for them.
“Today, they are being told that the party that they support and the candidates that they have supported at all levels could be erased by the stroke of a reckless judicial pen,” Abdullahi said.
He maintained that the implications of the judgment extended beyond Atiku and Mark, arguing that nominations conducted under the disputed leadership could affect candidates seeking elective positions across the country.
“Do these people understand what they are playing with? This is not about Atiku Abubakar or David Mark. It is about the democratic rights of Nigerians to freely choose their own leaders. It is about the rights of thousands of candidates to participate in a democratic process,” he stated.
The party cited an earlier decision delivered by Justice Musa Liman of the Federal High Court on July 2, 2026, in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1637/2025, which it maintained had affirmed the legitimacy of the Mark-led NWC and directed INEC to recognise the leadership.
According to the ADC, the existence of the earlier judgment raised fundamental questions about whether another court of coordinate jurisdiction could entertain proceedings capable of effectively invalidating an existing decision.
“It is a settled principle of Nigerian jurisprudence that a court of coordinate jurisdiction cannot sit on appeal over, review, vary or nullify the subsisting judgment of another court of equal jurisdiction.
“The ADC, therefore, rejects any consequential orders founded on a determination that appears to disregard these fundamental legal principles. However, we await the Certified True Copy (CTC) of the said judgment to ascertain its precise terms, scope and operative orders,” the party stated.
Abdullahi further accused the APC of resorting to judicial processes whenever opposition forces appeared to be gaining political momentum.
“We have seen this script before. When they are scared that the opposition is gathering steam, they use their judges in the courts to influence legally indefensible judgments. But the millions of Nigerians that are hungry and waiting for them at the ballot box see right through them and will not sit down in silence while our democracy is taken away by the courts,” he alleged.
He warned against actions capable of threatening political stability, while urging party members and supporters to remain calm and law-abiding.
“We warn the APC: do not play with fires you cannot control. The peace and stability of Nigeria are bigger than the ambition of any president or political party. Nobody should be so desperate to retain power that they are prepared to put the entire country at risk. This is not the time to play silly games with the stability of this country.
“Nigeria belongs to Nigerians, not to the APC. The presidency is not an inheritance. If the President thinks he has performed well in office, why is he afraid of competition? If the APC thinks that its policies and candidates are popular, why don’t they subject themselves to free and fair elections?
“This is not just about the ADC or Atiku Abubakar; it is an ill wind that blows nobody any good,” he declared.
The ADC Presidential Campaign Council also dismissed the judgment as academic and of no practical effect, insisting that it could not override an existing judgment of a court of coordinate jurisdiction.
Its Director of Media and Publicity, Kola Ologbondiyan, in a statement, said the party’s legal team was taking immediate steps to challenge the ruling through appropriate judicial channels, including seeking interim relief.
“The judgment is of no practical effect and cannot override or displace an existing judgment of a court of coordinate jurisdiction on the same subject matter.”
Ologbondiyan recalled that Justice Liman had previously examined the emergence of Mark and Aregbesola and upheld the leadership transition from former National Chairman Ralph Nwosu.
According to him, the disputed July 2, 2025 meeting preceded the July 29, 2025 National Executive Council meeting at which Mark and Aregbesola emerged as National Chairman and National Secretary respectively.
Ologbondiyan maintained that the NEC meeting was monitored by INEC, arguing that the earlier judgment had subjected the leadership dispute to judicial scrutiny.
“The legal implications of that judgment cannot be wished away. It is, therefore, untenable to suggest that a subsequent pronouncement can simply erase an existing judicial decision.”
He also questioned the timing of the latest judgment, coming shortly after what the campaign council described as the successful flag-off of Atiku’s presidential campaign in Sokoto.
The spokesman expressed concern over Justice Lifu’s involvement in another ruling concerning the ADC, recalling that an earlier deregistration judgment delivered by the judge had been overturned on appeal.
Ologbondiyan raised concerns about alleged pressure and political interference, stressing that judicial independence and impartiality must be protected.
“For the avoidance of doubt, Sen. David Mark remains the National Chairman recognised by the party, while Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola remains its National Secretary,” he declared.
He urged ADC candidates, members and supporters to remain calm, vigilant and committed to their campaigns, assuring them that the legal team would pursue available remedies, including a stay of execution where applicable.
“ADC is not distracted. The campaign continues. The struggle for a better Nigeria remains unstoppable,” he said.
Atiku, who also rejected the judgment, alleged that its timing was not coincidental, describing it as part of a broader attempt to weaken his political support, particularly in northern Nigeria, and frustrate his presidential campaign.
In a statement issued by the Director of Strategic Communication of the ADC Presidential Campaign Council, Phrank Shaibu, the former VP maintained that the ruling would neither stop his political activities nor diminish the support his campaign was attracting across the country.
“The people of Sokoto came out in their thousands because they are hungry for change and believe in our promise to make life affordable again. What we witnessed in Sokoto is only the beginning. The people of Kebbi will have their say, and so will Nigerians across the country as our campaign moves forward.
“My roots are in Northern Nigeria, but my candidacy belongs to all Nigerians. There is a difference between being from the North and being a candidate only for the North. Hunger and hardship do not respect regional boundaries. Nigerians across the country are suffering under this government, and they deserve a leader with a credible plan to make life affordable again.”
Atiku alleged that the judgment formed part of an effort to undermine his political mobilisation, insisting that his campaign would continue notwithstanding the legal challenge.
“The timing of this judgment is no coincidence. It is part of a strategy to weaken my support in the North and frustrate a campaign whose message is resonating across the country. But the ruling party’s greatest miscalculation is to assume that my support ends in the North.
“What we saw in Sokoto, what we will see in Kebbi and across the country, is the strength of a national movement,” he stated.
Other News
Atiku also challenged the legal basis of the ruling, arguing that the dispute over the Mark-led leadership had already been addressed in earlier proceedings before Justice Liman.
“Justice Musa Liman of the same Federal High Court had already dismissed the challenge to the David Mark-led leadership in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1637/2025. The court upheld the defendants’ objections on jurisdiction, standing and the failure to exhaust internal party remedies, and resolved the substantive issues in their favour.
“Why, after that judgment, was another case filed to reopen the same dispute? This is a calculated attempt to circumvent a subsisting judgment. We will challenge this judicial manoeuvre at the Court of Appeal.”
Atiku urged supporters to remain peaceful and focused, assuring them that his presidential campaign would continue despite the judgment, with the campaign train proceeding to Kebbi State after the Sokoto rally.
“Our journey to rescue Nigeria from the hardship imposed by the APC government is a long one. Our Affordable Life campaign will continue because Nigerians deserve relief from this crushing cost-of-living crisis.
“We urge our supporters to remain resolute, take our message from house to house and door to door, and stay peaceful and focused. There is no shaking,” he said.
However, Gombe, whose suit produced the judgment, welcomed the decision, accusing the Mark-led group of unlawfully taking control of a political party sustained by its longstanding members.
He maintained that the ruling vindicated his position that the disputed leadership had failed to comply with the procedures prescribed by the party’s constitution.
Gombe accused the group of attempting to take over the ADC after encountering difficulties within their previous political platforms, disputing their claim to the party’s leadership and structures.
He also dismissed the threatened appeal, expressing confidence that the judgment would withstand further judicial scrutiny.
Counsel to Gombe, Lukman Fagbemi, maintained that the ruling invalidated actions taken by the disputed leadership since July 2025, while another lawyer, Luka Musa Haruna, interpreted the decision as having far-reaching consequences for the party’s ability to field candidates in the forthcoming elections.
Those interpretations, however, remain subject to the precise terms of the judgment and any subsequent appellate decision.
The judgment arose from a suit instituted by Gombe, a deputy national chairman of the ADC, who challenged the emergence of Mark, Aregbesola and other national officers, alleging that they unlawfully took control of the party without complying with the procedures prescribed for electing its leadership.
Gombe named the ADC, Mark, Aregbesola, INEC and former National Chairman Ralph Nwosu as defendants, seeking orders restraining the affected officials from parading themselves as leaders of the party.
Justice Lifu upheld his arguments and declared the actions taken by the Mark-led leadership unlawful, null and void.
The judge also dismissed 27 preliminary motions filed by the ADC leadership and other defendants challenging the competence of the suit, while rejecting applications by some NWC members seeking to be joined as parties to the proceedings.
The ruling followed earlier litigation over the party’s leadership, including proceedings before Justice Liman and an intervention by the Supreme Court, which permitted the substantive dispute before the Federal High Court to proceed.
In another reaction, a former secretary of the Arewa Consultative Forum described the court decision as democracy in action, insisting that respect for the rule of law remained fundamental to Nigeria’s multiparty democratic system.
The former ACF official said the court’s intervention should be viewed within the context of constitutionalism, stressing that political parties and candidates must comply with the Constitution, the Electoral Act and their internal rules.
“That is democracy in action. Our multiparty democracy is anchored on the rule of law. So, if the court has sacked the leadership of ADC and nullified all actions taken by the leadership that have affected the candidates, it may be because the party might have run foul of the nation’s Constitution and Electoral Act or the constitution of the party.”
He, however, acknowledged that the affected party leadership and candidates retained the right to challenge the decision through the appropriate judicial channels.
“And if the party and the candidates feel aggrieved, they are at liberty to seek redress through appeals. This is the way to go in democracy,” he said.
The former ACF scribe cautioned political leaders against making statements capable of undermining public confidence in the judiciary and INEC, arguing that democratic institutions must be strengthened even when their decisions do not favour particular political interests.
“But when the affected leaders malign the courts and INEC, it is not helpful. Our leaders are expected to strengthen our democratic institutions, and not to make people lose faith in them,” he stated.
Similarly, APC chieftain and political advocate Abdulhakeem Adegoke Alawuje dismissed allegations that the ruling party was responsible for the ADC leadership crisis, describing such claims as politically mischievous and an attempt to divert attention from the opposition party’s internal disagreements.
In a statement, Alawuje maintained that Mark’s emergence as a leader within the ADC did not automatically confer an unquestionable or permanent leadership position on him, irrespective of the party’s constitution and applicable laws.
“It is both intellectually dishonest and politically mischievous for anyone to expect Senator David Mark’s emergence as the leader of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) to automatically translate into an unquestionable or permanent leadership position, irrespective of the party’s constitution, internal democratic processes and applicable laws.”
He insisted that the APC should not be held responsible for disagreements within another political party, particularly when the issues were already before the courts.
“Let us make this abundantly clear: The APC has no business being blamed for the internal leadership crisis of the ADC.”
Alawuje urged those accusing the ruling party of interference to examine the circumstances surrounding the litigation, including the parties involved, the issues presented before the court and the decisions delivered by the judiciary.
“A court judgment must be understood within its proper legal context, not manipulated to satisfy partisan emotions or manufacture political enemies.”
Alawuje argued that the ADC crisis exposed what he described as a weakness in Nigeria’s opposition politics, where influential politicians allegedly sought to take control of existing party structures rather than build sustainable political organisations from the grassroots.
“Building a political party requires more than political ambition, media visibility, influential personalities and grand declarations. It requires a clearly defined ideology, functional structures, internal democracy, respect for established rules and an enduring commitment to organisational development.”
He cautioned against treating political parties as convenient platforms for politicians seeking alternative political homes.
“Political parties are not private emergency shelters for politicians whose previous political platforms have become uncomfortable. Neither are they political properties that can be taken over without regard for their founding arrangements, constitutions and established procedures,” he added.
On the role of the judiciary, Alawuje maintained that disagreements with court decisions should be addressed through appeals rather than accusations against political opponents.
“If anyone disagrees with a court’s decision, the constitutionally recognised legal channels of appeal remain available. What is unacceptable is the deliberate distortion of judicial pronouncements, the mobilisation of public hostility against political opponents and the reckless attempt to implicate an entirely different political party in a dispute that must first be resolved by the parties directly involved,” he said.
He challenged those accusing the APC of sponsoring the ADC crisis to provide credible evidence.
“My position is unequivocal: The APC should not be dragged into an internal ADC dispute without credible evidence establishing its involvement. Let the parties concerned address their differences through the appropriate legal and constitutional mechanisms,” Alawuje stated.
He maintained that Nigeria’s democracy must be guided by institutional discipline, internal democracy and respect for the rule of law rather than political entitlement.
“You cannot build a political party on borrowed structures, disregard its constitutional foundations and subsequently blame the ruling party when internal contradictions emerge,” he said.
With the rival factions maintaining opposing interpretations of the Federal High Court judgment, the ADC now faces renewed uncertainty over its leadership, the status of nominations conducted under the disputed executives and its preparations for the 2027 general elections.
While Atiku and the Mark-led leadership have insisted that their campaign activities will continue as they pursue judicial remedies, Gombe and his supporters are seeking to enforce a judgment they regard as a victory for the party’s internal rules.
The next stage of the confrontation is expected to shift to the appellate courts, where the competing claims over the party’s leadership and the legal consequences of the November 5 judgment will face further scrutiny.
