Follow Us on Google
On 5 November 2026, Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court, Abuja, delivered judgement in the case of Bala Nafiu Gombe v. ADC & 4 Ors. The Certified True Copy (CTC) was inordinately delayed for no reason until 11 November 2026 when the defendants were already hard pressed for time to appeal the decision of the court.
The facts of the case are simple. The African Democratic Congress (ADC) voluntarily dissolved its National Executive Committee (NEC) and National Working Committee (NWC) in order to transform its party to a national party. It elected another National Working Committee headed by David Mark as National Chairman and Rauf Aregbesola as National Secretary, following the resignation of all the members of its NWC and NEC, including Nafiu Bala Gombe. The resignation of Nafiu Bala Gombe, dated 17 May 2025 was filed alongside the resignation of all other National officers of the party. The dissolution and election of the new leadership of ADC under David Mark was done by the NEC of ADC on 29 July 2025, after about 25-day notice of the meeting to The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), which monitored and approved the transfer of leadership from Ralphs Nwosu to David Mark.
It was ridiculous that Nafiu Bala was to deny that he didn’t resign from his position as the Deputy National Chairman and alleged that his signature was forged. He participated in all the processes that dissolved the old executives of ADC, and participated in the unveiling and election of the new one.
Bala sued ADC to court with originating summons to demand that the court nullify the leadership of ADC under David Mark and declare him the leader of ADC as the only remaining executive who didn’t resign. His argument was that the installation of the new leadership under David Mark didn’t emerge through democratic election and violated sections 223(1)(a) and 228(a)(b) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria and section 82(1)(2)(3)(5) of the Electoral Act, 2022.
In the determination of Bala’s suit, Justice Lifu considered these central questions: whether the purported resignation of Bala, relied upon by ADC, has been established; whether the 99th National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting of ADC held on 29th July 2025 lawfully dissolved the existing National Working Committee (NWC) and constituted the 2nd and 3rd defendants as national officers; and whether the INEC acted in accordance with its constitutional and statutory obligations in monitoring and recognizing the outcome of that meeting.
It is with utmost surprise that Justice Lifu held that the defendants did not prove that Bala resigned, even after presenting Bala’s resignation letter written in his own writing. The argument of Lifu was that Bala signed the witness statement on oath, and after comparing the two signatures, he found out that they appeared different, and as such he agreed that Bala didn’t sign the letter of resignation. In other words, he agreed with Bala that his signature was forged. He relied on section 101(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011.
It must be noted that Bala already knew that his signature was subject to scrutiny when he signed his witness statement on oath thereby raising reasonable suspicion that he could have twisted the signature to appear different. Moreover, nothing stops any person from having more than one signature. Above all, the position of the law is that when there is conflict in the affidavit evidence presented by opposing parties, the court should immediately call oral evidence to sort out the conflict. Section 116 of the Evidence Act, 2011, states that: “When there are before a court affidavits that are irreconcilably in conflict on crucial facts, the court shall for the purpose of resolving the conflict arising from the affidavit evidence, ask the parties to proffer oral evidence as to such facts, and shall hear any such oral evidence of the deponents of the affidavits and such other witnesses as may be called by the parties.” Justice Lifu refused and failed to do this. His decision that Bala did not resign based on his subjective comparison of two different signatures of Bala seemed a bit concocted.
Other News
Another position of the law is that immediately an allegation of crime is raised in a suit, the court loses its power to determine it through originating summons and must resort to continue the trial through writ of summons. The Supreme Court had determined that whenever there is an allegation of crime, the standard of proof is proof beyond reasonable doubt not by preponderance of evidence. This standard of proof requires calling of witnesses to give oral evidence to prove the allegation beyond reasonable doubt. Justice Lifu did not do this. He unilaterally decided that Bala’s signature was forged.
It is also important to note that INEC received Bala’s resignation and documented it even before the commencement of the suit. INEC has the constitutional right to register political parties, monitor the organisation and operations of political parties. If INEC accepted this resignation, how then could Lifu pass his judgement only from Bala’s evidence?
On the question of the dissolution of the old executives, the judge did not find anything whatsoever against the dissolution. In Justice Lifu’s words: “I accept that political parties possess autonomy to regulate their internal affairs under their constitutions. Article 19(14) of the ADC Constitution, as relied upon by the defendants, is relevant to the powers of the NEC between national conventions, including its powers concerning the NWC and the organisation of party administration.” There is no place in the judgement where the judge ruled against the dissolution. It is safe to conclude that the court sanctioned the dissolution of the old executives.
It is surprising that the same judge who did not rule against the dissolution, would go ahead to rule that the installation of the new executive violated constitutional and statutory electoral provisions. The judge found out that the ADC Constitution approved the transfer of leadership from Ralphs Nwosu to David Mark, yet he decided that the provision of article 19(14)(x) of ADC Constitution is inconsistent with sections 223(1)(a) and 228(a)(b) of the 1999 Constitution and section 82(1)(2)(3)(5) of the Electoral Act and as such void.
This decision appears weird. None of the constitutional or statutory provision stated the procedure for the democratic election it demanded. They actually reinforced the idea that it is the party’s constitution that determines the procedure for the democratic election. Section 223(1)(a) states that: “The constitution and rules of a political party shall provide for the periodical election on a democratic basis of the principal officers and members of the executives committee or other governing body of the political party.” The 1999 Constitution actually gave the power to the parties to determine the procedure for the democratic election which would produce its leaders.
Section 228(a)(b) simply gave power to the National Assembly to make laws to determine how internal democracy would be facilitated. The National Assembly made the law in section 82 of the Electoral Act and determined that a party can change its leaders during convention, congresses, or even during ordinary meetings provided they invite INEC within 21 days to come and monitor it. This was exactly what ADC did. The Federal High Court under Justice Liman made it clear that the transfer of leadership from Ralphs Nwosu to David Mark did not breach ADC constitution or the Electoral Act. The contrary decision by Justice Lifu, therefore, respectfully was not in accordance with the law.
It is important to note that Justice Lifu held that appropriate notice was given to INEC for the meeting, yet he held that INEC’s approval of all the actions of ADC in the transfer of leadership and subsequent recognition of David Mark was against the extant laws. How? The Constitution, in paragraph F15(b)(c) of Part 1 of the Third Schedule to the 1999 Constitution, gave exclusive powers to INEC to register, monitor the organisation and operations of political parties including their finances, conventions, congresses, and party primaries. They did this with ADC’s transfer of leadership from Ralph Nwosu to David Mark and found the process impeccable. Justice Lifu, therefore, lacks the legal vires to disturb the submissions made by JNEC to his court.
The most interesting irony in Justice Lifu’s judgement is his insistence that the David Mark-Led leadership of ADC did not emerge by democratic election, yet he sanctioned the hostile and illegitimate takeover of ADC by the resigned Nafiu Bala. Which democratic election produced Bala as the National Chairman of ADC. Nafiu Bala, in his own affidavit stated that his tenure expires on 11 October 2026. Justice Lifu gave an illegal order on 5 November 2026, after Bala’s tenure had expired, for Bala to take over ADC. Strange indeed. The question is which section of the 1999 Constitution or Electoral Act gave Bala the power to take over as National Chairman? None. Nafiu relied on the same ADC constitution to hijack the ADC with the unfortunate concurrence of Justice Lifu, yet Justice Lifu would discard the ADC constitution to de-recognise David Mark-Led leadership. This signifies that the subject matter of this suit is the internal affairs of ADC and as such non-justiciable.
It is important to note that Justice Lifu had ruled in the case of the National Forum of Former Legislators v. ADC and 5 Ors that ADC should be deregistered without any legal basis. His decision has been quashed by the Court of Appeal. His latest judgement sounds like his old lyrics of trying to use the instrumentality of the law to achieve unlawful destruction of ADC just to prevent HE Atiku Abubakar from contesting the 2027 election in order for Tinubu to run unopposed.
