The political and legal crisis within the African Democratic Congress (ADC) has entered a more complicated phase following the judgment delivered by Justice Peter O. Lifu of the Federal High Court, Abuja, on 5 November 2026.
The judgment in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025, instituted by Hon. Nafiu Bala Gombe, has invalidated the emergence of the leadership headed by Senator David Mark and Rauf Aregbesola, rejected the purported resignation letter attributed to Gombe and invalidated decisions taken by the disputed leadership from 29 July 2025.
But beyond the immediate leadership controversy, the judgment has introduced several important questions into Nigeria’s 2027 political calculations.
What happens to former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar’s presidential nomination, which emerged through the ADC leadership structure now declared unlawful?
How should the legal system reconcile Justice Lifu’s decision with the earlier judgment of Justice Musa Liman, which reportedly upheld the Mark-led leadership?
What happens when a political party appeals a judgment, applies for a stay of execution and challenges the practical consequences of the decision while INEC is still examining the judicial orders?
And perhaps most importantly, what is the lawful way forward for a political party caught between competing leadership claims and an approaching electoral timetable?
These questions make this dispute considerably bigger than an ordinary disagreement over party leadership.
It is now a test of judicial consistency, internal party democracy, electoral administration and the constitutional right of political participation.
1. UNDERSTANDING THE TWO JUDGMENTS: JUSTICE LIMAN VERSUS JUSTICE LIFU
Perhaps the most important development ordinary Nigerians need to understand is that two judges of the Federal High Court in Abuja have delivered decisions that appear to support opposing positions on the ADC leadership question.
On 2 July 2026, Justice Musa Liman delivered judgment in a case instituted by Hon. Leke Abejide, a member of the House of Representatives.
Justice Liman dismissed Abejide’s challenge to the emergence of the Mark-led ADC leadership.
His decision was substantially based on preliminary objections, including the argument that the dispute concerned the internal affairs of a political party and was not justiciable in the circumstances presented before him.
The judgment effectively provided judicial support for the Mark-led leadership arrangement.
However, on 5 November 2026, Justice Peter Lifu delivered judgment in a different suit instituted by Nafiu Bala Gombe.
Unlike the earlier proceedings, Gombe’s case specifically challenged the constitutionality and legality of the process through which Mark and Aregbesola emerged as national officers.
Justice Lifu held that the emergence of the disputed leadership had not been demonstrated to satisfy the mandatory democratic election requirements under Section 82(3) of the Electoral Act 2022.
He consequently invalidated the process and the subsequent decisions taken by the disputed leadership.
Why is this important?
The ordinary Nigerian may reasonably ask: If one Federal High Court judge has upheld the leadership, how can another judge invalidate it?
The answer requires an important legal distinction.
The two cases were instituted by different plaintiffs and raised different pleadings, evidential issues and reliefs. The parties, questions for determination and orders must be examined before concluding that the two judgments are legally irreconcilable.
A judgment in one case does not automatically disappear because another judge subsequently reaches a different conclusion in another case.
Equally, the existence of an earlier judgment does not automatically prevent another court from examining a distinct cause of action involving different parties and issues.
The doctrine of res judicata, which prevents parties from reopening matters already finally determined between them, may become relevant. However, its application depends on the identity of the parties or their privies, the subject matter, the issues and the finality of the earlier decision.
These are questions that the appellate courts may have to examine.
The Court of Appeal will therefore need to consider the relationship between the two decisions, the legal issues determined in each and the extent to which either judgment has binding consequences for the other.
This is not a matter that should be resolved through political declarations or media arguments.
2. THE SUPREME COURT’S INTERVENTION OF 30 APRIL 2026: WHAT DID IT ACTUALLY DECIDE?
Another important part of the story is the intervention of the Supreme Court on 30 April 2026.
Before that decision, the ADC leadership crisis had generated proceedings at the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal, including orders concerning the maintenance of the status quo ante bellum.
INEC had earlier removed the Mark-led leadership from its portal following the Court of Appeal’s intervention.
The Supreme Court subsequently set aside the Court of Appeal’s status quo ante bellum order.
The apex court’s decision was significant because it removed the particular preservative order that had led to the removal of the Mark-led leadership from INEC’s records.
INEC subsequently restored the names of Senator David Mark and Rauf Aregbesola to its official records.
However, there is an important distinction that must not be lost.
THE SUPREME COURT DID NOT FINALLY DETERMINE THE SUBSTANTIVE LEGALITY OF THE MARK-LED LEADERSHIP IN THAT PARTICULAR APPEAL.
It dealt with the interim procedural order and allowed the substantive dispute to proceed for determination.
In other words, the Supreme Court did not give the Mark-led faction a permanent judicial certificate of legitimacy.
It removed an interim procedural obstacle and allowed the substantive case to proceed.
This distinction is crucial when assessing the subsequent judgment of Justice Lifu.
The Supreme Court’s April decision and Justice Lifu’s November decision addressed different stages of the litigation.
3. SECTION 82(3): WHAT DOES THE ELECTORAL ACT ACTUALLY REQUIRE?
For ordinary Nigerians, the legal language surrounding this dispute can be difficult to understand.
Section 82(3) of the Electoral Act 2022 establishes the democratic requirement for elections into political party executive committees and other governing bodies.
In simple language, the election of party officers must be conducted democratically, allowing members or duly elected delegates to participate and vote for candidates of their choice.
The provision is intended to prevent a small group of party officials from simply selecting individuals and presenting them as democratically elected leaders without following the prescribed process.
The central question before Justice Lifu was therefore whether the process that produced the Mark-led leadership satisfied the democratic election requirement or whether it amounted merely to an adoption, endorsement or selection at a meeting.
The court concluded that the defendants had not established compliance with the mandatory statutory requirements.
It is important to note that Section 82 contains several provisions concerning party conventions, congresses, elections and INEC’s monitoring responsibilities. These requirements must be read together rather than treated as interchangeable.
4. THE ADC’S COUNTER-EVIDENCE: WHAT HAPPENED TO GOMBE’S OWN CONDUCT?
A candid analysis cannot ignore the evidence and arguments advanced by the ADC and the Mark-led leadership.
The party has presented a document reportedly titled Fallacy vs Fact, challenging the interpretation of Justice Lifu’s decision.
Among its arguments are claims that:
Gombe attended the 99th NEC meeting and appeared as number 53 on the attendance register.
He was present at the public unveiling of the Mark-led leadership at the Shehu Musa Yar’Adua Centre on 2 July 2025.
He publicly acknowledged Senator David Mark as National Chairman.
The Supreme Court’s April 2026 decision removed the interim obstacle to the Mark-led leadership, following which INEC restored the names of the leadership on its portal.
These claims deserve serious examination.
Indeed, Gombe’s attendance at the public unveiling is relevant circumstantial evidence of his presence and conduct at the event.
However, there is a distinction between attending a political gathering and participating in a constitutionally valid election.
Attendance proves presence. It does not prove that eligible delegates voted. It does not establish that INEC monitored a democratic election. It does not, by itself, prove compliance with the ADC Constitution or the Electoral Act.
Similarly, acknowledging an individual at a public function does not automatically amount to a legally effective resignation from an elected office.
The more important questions are:
Was Gombe’s participation at the 99th NEC meeting accompanied by a valid democratic process?
Was there an actual election, with eligible members or duly elected delegates given the opportunity to vote?
Was the alleged resignation genuine?
Did the party comply with the requirements of its constitution and the Electoral Act?
Justice Lifu considered the competing documentary and affidavit evidence before him. He specifically examined the disputed resignation letter and rejected it after comparing its signature with Gombe’s other signatures.
The ADC is entitled to challenge that conclusion on appeal, including by arguing that the trial court did not give adequate weight to the evidence available to it.
But attendance at a meeting and the existence of an attendance register do not, by themselves, establish that a democratic election took place.
The two questions must not be confused.
5. THE RESIGNATION LETTER: AN EVIDENTIAL FINDING IS NOT A CRIMINAL CONVICTION
One of the most consequential findings of Justice Lifu concerned the purported resignation letter dated 17 May 2025.
The defendants relied on the document to establish that Gombe voluntarily relinquished his position before the emergence of the new leadership.
Gombe denied authoring the letter.
Justice Lifu compared the disputed signature with other signatures in documents attributed to Gombe and found material differences.
The judge consequently rejected the letter as reliable evidence of voluntary resignation.
However, the ADC maintains that it possesses the original resignation document and insists that Gombe signed it.
This disagreement is particularly important because the authenticity of the document has implications for Gombe’s claim to have remained an elected member of the NWC.
The appellate court may be invited to examine whether the trial judge properly evaluated the documentary evidence, whether the comparison of signatures was sufficient in the circumstances and whether further forensic or oral evidence was necessary.
There is an important distinction that must be emphasised.
Justice Lifu’s finding that the resignation letter was unreliable is a civil evidential finding. It is not a criminal conviction for forgery. No person has been convicted of forgery in this case.
The Court of Appeal may examine whether the trial judge should have called for forensic evidence or additional oral testimony before rejecting the document.
Until the appellate process is concluded, no individual should be described as a forger on the basis of this judgment.
This is not merely a question of legal technicality. It is a matter of fairness, responsible public communication and protection against unjustified reputational injury.
6. ATIKU ABUBAKAR: THE BIGGEST POLITICAL CASUALTY OR A CANDIDATE WITH A LEGAL ROUTE FOR SURVIVAL?
This is arguably the most politically sensitive dimension of the judgment.
Atiku Abubakar emerged as the ADC presidential candidate through the party’s electoral arrangements under the Mark-led leadership.
The court subsequently declared that actions, decisions and steps taken by the second and third defendants and the other members of the NWC they represented, from 29 July 2025, were null, void and without effect.
The implication is potentially far-reaching.
If the party’s presidential primary and the process that produced Atiku’s nomination are established to be decisions taken under the invalidated leadership, the legal foundation of his nomination is seriously threatened.
This is why several media reports have described the judgment as affecting or invalidating Atiku’s 2027 presidential candidacy.
However, we must make an important legal distinction.
The Certified True Copy of Justice Lifu’s judgment does not name Atiku in its final orders.
It does not contain a separate order expressly disqualifying him from contesting the presidency.
Rather, the concern arises from the broader declaration invalidating actions taken by the disputed leadership.
The legal question is therefore whether the process that produced Atiku’s nomination falls within the scope of the invalidated actions and what consequential reliefs may be necessary.
There are several possible developments.
First: The ADC may successfully challenge the judgment.
If the Court of Appeal overturns the relevant findings, the foundation of the Mark-led leadership and decisions taken under it may be restored, subject to the precise appellate orders.
This could provide a route for defending Atiku’s nomination.
Second: The Court of Appeal may affirm the judgment.
If the judgment is upheld, the ADC may have to confront the consequences of an invalidated leadership structure and the decisions taken under it.
The party may then need to explore lawful steps to regularise its leadership and electoral arrangements, subject to the Electoral Act, INEC’s timetable and the applicable nomination rules.
Third: The appellate court may modify the judgment.
It may uphold some findings while varying others, particularly where the validity of the leadership process and the legal consequences for subsequent decisions require separate consideration.
This possibility should not be overlooked.
Atiku’s challenge is not simply about winning the argument over who controls the ADC secretariat. It is about protecting the legal foundation of his presidential ambition.
His political supporters may regard the matter as an attempt to frustrate his participation in the 2027 elections.
His opponents may see it as a legitimate enforcement of the rules governing political parties.
But the court must determine the matter on evidence and law, not political sympathy.
7. THE EFFECT ON OTHER ADC CANDIDATES AND PARTY DECISIONS
The implications of the judgment may extend beyond Atiku Abubakar.
The final orders invalidate actions, decisions and steps taken by the disputed leadership from 29 July 2025.
If interpreted broadly, this could raise questions concerning:
Presidential nomination arrangements.
Governorship primaries.
National Assembly and State Assembly nominations.
Appointments into party structures.
Membership registration and administrative decisions.
Financial and organisational decisions taken under the disputed leadership.
Decisions affecting state chapters and party organs.
However, it would be premature to declare every one of these activities automatically invalid without examining the nature of each action and its connection to the disputed leadership.
The Court of Appeal will need to clarify the scope and practical reach of the declarations.
Does the invalidation apply indiscriminately to every administrative act undertaken by the disputed leadership, or does its practical effect depend on the nature of the decision, the parties affected and the legal context?
What happens to individuals who participated in primaries or undertook legitimate administrative activities in reliance on the party’s recognised leadership at the time?
What happens where third-party rights or electoral processes have already been affected?
These questions are important because the ADC is not merely a national headquarters structure. It is an organisation with state chapters, local government structures, candidates and thousands of members.
A prolonged uncertainty could create confusion throughout the party.
The appellate court should therefore provide sufficient clarity to prevent unnecessary disruption to legitimate political participation.
8. INEC’S POSITION: THE COMMISSION HAS RECEIVED THE APPEAL BUT IS STILL AWAITING THE JUDGMENT
INEC’s position has introduced another important dimension.
On 11 November 2026, INEC National Commissioner and Chairman of its Information and Voter Education Committee, Mohammed Kudu Haruna, explained that the Commission would not take action until it obtained and studied the Certified True Copy of Justice Lifu’s judgment.
He explained that the Commission’s legal department would examine the decision and advise the appropriate committee before any institutional decision was taken.
There has subsequently been an important clarification in the reporting of the matter.
As reported on 12 November, Haruna stated that INEC had received the ADC’s appeal and its application for a stay of execution but had not received the Certified True Copy as of Tuesday night.
Separately, reports indicated that the ADC had obtained its own copy of the judgment.
These are not necessarily contradictory developments. The fact that the ADC has obtained its copy does not mean INEC has received its own copy.
INEC has indicated that a decision will require deliberation by the Commission, potentially at a meeting the following week.
The distinction between receiving news of a judgment, obtaining its authenticated copy and determining the administrative consequences is important.
INEC cannot simply ignore a valid court order. Equally, it must not act on incomplete information or political pressure.
Its responsibility is to implement the law impartially and transparently.
The Commission’s next decision will therefore be closely watched by political parties and the Nigerian electorate.
9. THE STAY OF EXECUTION: HAS THE JUDGMENT BEEN SUSPENDED?
This is another area where public misunderstanding is widespread.
Following Justice Lifu’s judgment, the ADC filed a Notice of Appeal and an application for a stay of execution.
The application seeks to suspend the operation of the judgment pending the determination of the appeal.
However, filing an application is not the same as obtaining an order.
As at 12 November 2026, available reports indicate that the ADC’s application for a stay of execution had been filed but had not yet been granted.
This distinction is fundamental.
An appeal does not automatically suspend the operation of a judgment.
Similarly, an application for a stay does not become an order merely because it has been filed.
The court must consider the application and decide whether the circumstances justify granting the requested relief.
Until a stay is granted, the judgment remains operative, subject to any subsequent judicial order.
This is why the ADC’s legal team must pursue its application through the appropriate judicial process rather than assume that the mere filing of an appeal has suspended the judgment.
10. THE TENURE QUESTION: A LEGAL PROBLEM THAT CANNOT BE IGNORED
There is another issue that deserves particularly serious attention.
According to the judgment, Gombe was elected Deputy National Chairman on 12 October 2022 for a four-year tenure ending on 11 October 2026.
Justice Lifu delivered his judgment on 5 November 2026.
This means the judgment came approximately 25 days after the stated expiration of Gombe’s tenure.
The court nevertheless declared him to be the only elected member of the ADC National Working Committee whose four-year tenure remained in effect and who was entitled to supervise the party’s affairs.
This creates a practical and legal question that requires careful examination.
If the tenure had already expired, on what legal basis can the surviving member continue to supervise the party indefinitely?
Does the ADC Constitution provide for a holdover arrangement, caretaker structure or transitional mechanism where the tenure of elected officers expires before a new leadership is constituted?
If such a provision exists, what are its limits and conditions?
If no such provision exists, can the court’s declaration be interpreted as extending an expired tenure by implication?
These are not minor questions.
They go to the heart of the practical implementation of the judgment.
The court’s decision must be read alongside the precise terms of its orders, the party constitution and the applicable legal principles governing the continuity of party administration.
One point must be made absolutely clear:
THE JUDGMENT DID NOT APPOINT NAFIU BALA GOMBE AS THE SUBSTANTIVE NATIONAL CHAIRMAN OF THE ADC.
It recognised him as the only elected member of the NWC whose tenure was identified as remaining in effect and declared him entitled to supervise the party’s affairs.
These are not necessarily the same thing.
The court did not expressly declare him the substantive National Chairman.
The distinction is important because some political supporters may be tempted to interpret the judgment as automatically transferring the chairmanship to Gombe.
That would go beyond the express language of the court’s final orders.
The practical extent of his authority, particularly following the stated expiration of his tenure, requires further legal clarification.
The ADC must ultimately establish a constitutionally compliant and democratically legitimate leadership arrangement.
11. WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEAL?
The Court of Appeal is likely to become the next major theatre of this dispute.
The ADC and other dissatisfied parties may challenge several aspects of Justice Lifu’s decision.
Among the issues that may arise are:
Whether the trial court properly exercised jurisdiction over the dispute, considering the earlier judgment of Justice Liman and the legal questions raised in the two proceedings.
Whether the plaintiff’s standing and the applicable internal party procedures were properly evaluated.
Whether the trial judge correctly interpreted Section 82(3) of the Electoral Act and the relevant constitutional provisions.
Whether the court adequately evaluated the documentary evidence, including the alleged resignation letter, the NEC proceedings and the attendance records.
Whether the court’s declarations and injunctions were properly framed and whether they extend to all consequential decisions taken by the disputed leadership.
Whether the court correctly addressed the effect of Gombe’s expired tenure.
Whether the judgment’s consequential implications for the ADC’s presidential nomination and other candidates require further clarification.
Whether the relationship between the earlier Liman judgment and the subsequent Lifu judgment raises issues of res judicata, issue estoppel or other applicable legal principles.
The ADC has already taken steps to appeal and has applied for a stay of execution.
The Court of Appeal may affirm, reverse, vary or remit relevant issues for further consideration.
The Supreme Court may ultimately become involved if the matter proceeds through the available appellate process.
Given the approaching 2027 electoral timetable, an accelerated hearing would be in the public interest, provided the parties are given a fair opportunity to present their cases.
12. THE LAWFUL WAY FORWARD: BEYOND THE COURTROOM CONFRONTATION
The ADC leadership crisis requires more than competing press statements and political declarations.
It requires a lawful and practical pathway that protects the institution, its members and the democratic rights of Nigerians who wish to participate through the party.
We propose the following steps.
First, accelerated judicial determination.
The Court of Appeal should consider an expedited hearing of the appeal and any related applications, given the electoral implications and the need for certainty before the 2027 elections.
Second, transparent action by INEC.
INEC should obtain and study the Certified True Copy, seek appropriate legal advice and issue a clear public statement explaining its position and the steps it intends to take.
The Commission must act consistently with the law and any subsisting court orders.
Third, a constitutionally compliant leadership process.
Whichever faction ultimately prevails must ensure that the party’s national officers emerge through a democratic process consistent with the ADC Constitution, the Constitution of Nigeria and the Electoral Act.
Where necessary and legally permissible, a fresh, properly convened and INEC-monitored election of national officers should be considered.
Fourth, regularisation of candidate nominations.
The party must establish the lawful status of its nominations and, if the circumstances require, explore whatever corrective processes are legally available within INEC’s electoral timetable.
No faction should assume that political popularity or previous recognition can substitute for compliance with the law.
Fifth, responsible political communication.
All parties should allow their legal representatives to explain the judicial proceedings accurately.
Public statements should not misrepresent court orders, accuse opponents without evidence or create unnecessary hostility among party members.
Sixth, protection of party members and candidates.
The rights and legitimate expectations of members, aspirants and candidates who participated in party processes should be considered within the applicable legal framework.
The objective should be to resolve the leadership crisis without unnecessarily destroying the party’s organisational capacity or denying legitimate political participation.
13. THE BIGGER POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS FOR NIGERIA’S 2027 ELECTION
This controversy has implications beyond the ADC.
The 2027 elections are approaching at a time when political parties are expected to consolidate their structures, complete internal processes and prepare for a demanding electoral contest.
A prolonged leadership crisis can weaken a party’s ability to organise, mobilise supporters, manage its finances, conduct primaries and present credible candidates.
The ADC’s challenge is particularly serious because the party has become an important platform for opposition political mobilisation.
Its ability to provide a credible alternative depends not only on the popularity of its political figures but also on the integrity of its internal institutions.
There is also a national democratic implication.
If political parties cannot demonstrate internal democracy, they will struggle to persuade Nigerians that they can deliver democratic governance when entrusted with public power.
Equally, the courts and INEC must demonstrate consistency, independence and institutional neutrality.
The Nigerian electorate deserves political competition based on law, not administrative manipulation or litigation warfare.
14. OUR CANDID ASSESSMENT: WHO IS IN THE STRONGER POSITION?
At this stage, it would be premature to declare a final political or legal winner.
However, the current positions can be assessed objectively.
Nafiu Bala Gombe: He has secured a significant judgment invalidating the disputed leadership process and rejecting the purported resignation letter. His strongest immediate legal advantage is the express declaration in his favour. His difficulty is the expired tenure and the need to clarify the practical extent of his continuing authority.
Senator David Mark and Rauf Aregbesola: They face a serious setback because the judgment invalidated their emergence through the challenged process. However, they have grounds to contest the decision, including the earlier Liman judgment, the documentary evidence and the interpretation of the ADC Constitution.
INEC: The Commission faces a delicate institutional responsibility. It must reconcile its previous administrative recognition of the Mark-led leadership with the new judgment and any subsequent appellate orders. Its actions must be based on authenticated documents and the law.
Atiku Abubakar: His nomination faces a potentially serious legal challenge because of the broad invalidation of decisions taken by the disputed leadership. However, his candidacy has not been separately and expressly declared disqualified in the final orders. The actual legal consequences will depend on the scope of the judgment, the appellate proceedings and the applicable electoral requirements.
The ADC as an institution: The party is arguably the biggest immediate loser because the leadership crisis threatens its organisational stability, electoral preparations and public credibility.
CONCLUSION: THE COURTS MUST SETTLE WHAT POLITICS HAS FAILED TO RESOLVE
The ADC leadership controversy has become a complicated intersection of constitutional interpretation, party autonomy, electoral regulation and political ambition.
Justice Liman’s earlier decision, Justice Lifu’s subsequent judgment, the Supreme Court’s intervention and INEC’s administrative responses must all be examined within their proper legal contexts.
The temptation to simplify this dispute into a contest between political personalities must be resisted.
It is not enough to ask whether one supports Atiku, Mark, Aregbesola or Gombe.
The more important question is whether the procedures through which political authority is acquired and exercised comply with the Constitution and the Electoral Act.
For Atiku Abubakar, the coming legal battle may determine whether his 2027 presidential ambition proceeds on the ADC platform or faces a major institutional obstacle.
For Senator David Mark and Rauf Aregbesola, the challenge is to establish that the leadership arrangement they represent was lawfully constituted.
For Gombe, the challenge is to translate his judicial victory into a legally sustainable institutional outcome, particularly given the tenure issue.
For INEC, the responsibility is to act without political bias and in strict compliance with judicial decisions.
And for Nigeria, the lesson is unmistakable:
A political party cannot manufacture legitimacy through power, just as an individual cannot acquire political authority merely by winning a court case. Legitimacy must ultimately rest on law, evidence and democratic procedure.
The ADC must resolve its leadership crisis, protect its institutional integrity and avoid allowing an internal dispute to become a casualty of the 2027 electoral process.
Nigeria needs strong opposition parties, but it needs something even more fundamental: political institutions that respect the law.
Democracy is not merely about who wins an election. It is equally about whether those who organise, contest and regulate elections obey the rules.
AUTHORS
Yusuf Musa | CCEO, CCS
Centre For Contemporary Studies
Hadiza Usman Jega Esq. | CCS LEGAL
Centre For Contemporary Studies
Mohammed Mikha’il Lawal | Co-Author
Abuja-Nigeria
November 13, 2026