A Federal High Court in Abuja has invalidated the leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) under the former Senate President David Mark and set aside decisions taken by that leadership, including the nomination of former Vice President Atiku Abubakar as the party’s presidential candidate for Nigeria’s 2027 elections.
The ruling has triggered an immediate legal and political dispute over the future of one of the main opposition platforms challenging President Bola Tinubu’s All Progressives Congress (APC).
Justice Peter Lifu’s judgment followed a suit by Nafiu Bala Gombe, a former ADC deputy national chairman for the North-East.
Gombe argued that after the resignation of former national chairman Ralph Nwosu, the party’s constitution entitled him to assume the leadership.
The court accepted his case and held that the Mark-led caretaker committee
had not been lawfully constituted as reported by The PUNCH and Premium Times.
The judgment also nullified the emergence of Rauf Aregbesola as national secretary and other national officers appointed under the disputed structure.
It further invalidated the presidential primary that produced Atiku and the nominations of ADC candidates for offices ranging from the presidency to governorships and legislative seats.
Counsel for Gombe said the party’s actions from July 27, 2025, onward were annulled. The immediate practical effect remains uncertain because the ADC has said it will appeal.
Premium Times reported that, if the judgment survives appeals, the ADC could be prevented from fielding candidates in the approaching general elections.
Which is a significant qualification: the ruling has created a legal crisis, but it does not by itself settle the matter permanently while appellate proceedings remain available.
A dispute with a complicated legal history
The judgment is the latest turn in a leadership battle that has already reached Nigeria’s higher courts.
In April, the Supreme Court set aside a Court of Appeal directive requiring the
parties to maintain the status quo and returned the substantive dispute to the Federal High Court for determination.
The apex court’s decision effectively restored the Mark-led leadership pending trial; it did not finally resolve underlying claim brought by Gombe. That history is central to the ADC’s challenge.
The party says an earlier Federal High Court judgment by Justice Musa Liman had affirmed the legitimacy of the Mark-led National Working Committee and directed the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to recognise it.
In its statement, the ADC argued that a court of coordinate jurisdiction could
not review or nullify a subsisting decision of another court of equal jurisdiction.
It said it was awaiting the certified true copy of Justice Lifu’s judgment before determining the full scope of the orders.
Published reports differ on some dates in the competing accounts of the earlier judgment and party meetings.
The consistent point is that the dispute concerns whether the transition from Nwosu’s former leadership to the Mark -led structure followed the ADC’s
constitution and applicable electoral law.
The conflict between the two High Court
decisions is likely to be a central issue on appeal.
Why the timing has intensified the political fallout
The ruling was delivered roughly 72 days before the presidential and National Assembly elections scheduled for January 16, 2027, according to INEC’s official election calendar. Governorship and state House of Assembly elections are scheduled for February.
It came a day after Atiku held a large campaign rally in Sokoto, where the ADC presented its campaign as a national challenge to the APC.
The proximity between the rally and the
judgment has fuelled claims that the court action was politically timed. Those claims have not been established by independent evidence in the reporting reviewed for this story.
Atiku, through his campaign spokesman Phrank Shaibu, accused the APC of using the ruling to disrupt his campaign and weaken his support in northern Nigeria.
He said the party’s “Affordable Life” message would continue and urged supporters to remain peaceful. He
also questioned why the leadership dispute had been reopened despite the earlier Liman judgment.
Peter Obi, who is running under the Nigeria Democratic Congress, said he respected the judiciary’s authority but warned that uncertainty over parties and candidates close to an election could damage public confidence and restrict competition.
He called on the courts and political actors to protect the electorate’s ability to choose among credible candidates.
The Coalition of United Political Parties went further, accusing the APC of benefiting from a coordinated effort to weaken viable opposition parties and move Nigeria towards one-party rule.
The Social Democratic Party also urged the judiciary, INEC and security agencies to remain impartial, while saying political parties must be allowed to present candidates freely.
These are political allegations and warnings, not findings made by the court.
The government-aligned response
Festus Keyamo, the aviation and aerospace development minister and a prominent APC figure, welcomed the ruling. In comments reported by The PUNCH, he said the law should be decided by facts and evidence rather than sentiment or public outrage.
He argued that the Mark-led faction had attempted to take over the ADC without the prior meetings and approvals required by the party’s rules.
That response provides the principal publicly reported defence of the judgment from the ruling-party side. It frames the case as an internal party- governance dispute rather than an APC campaign against the opposition.
The APC has not been shown, in the sources reviewed, to have directed the judgment or interfered with the court.
The ADC’s claim that the ruling party engineered the litigation therefore remains an allegation that would require evidence beyond the timing of the decision and the political benefit it could produce.
The court’s finding and the political reactions address different questions. The legal question is whether the Mark- led leadership complied with the ADC constitution, the Electoral Act and the 1999 Constitution.
The political question is whether the consequences of invalidating the leadership and its nominations, so close to an election, will narrow voter choice or instead correct an unlawful party process.
Both questions are now likely to be
tested through the appeal process.
What happens next
The ADC says it will challenge the ruling at the Court of Appeal and pursue every available legal remedy. Until the appellate courts clarify the position, uncertainty surrounds the party’s leadership, its presidential ticket and its other nominations.
INEC’s official calendar confirms the approaching election dates, but the legal status of ADC candidates will depend on the eventual court orders and the electoral commission’s response to
them.
For now, Atiku remains the candidate produced by the ADC primary, but that nomination is under judicial challenge rather than conclusively erased from the entire 2027 contest.
The case also raises a broader democratic test: how to enforce party constitutions and electoral law without leaving voters and candidates uncertain immediately before an election.
The courts’ eventual resolution will affect not only the ADC and Atiku, but also confidence in Nigeria’s opposition space and the credibility of the 2027 electoral process.
