The Federal High Court, Abuja, presided over by Hon. Justice Peter O. Lifu, delivered its judgment on 5 November 2026 in the leadership dispute involving Hon. Nafiu Bala Gombe and the African Democratic Congress (ADC), alongside Senator David Mark, Rauf Aregbesola, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), and Chief Ralph Nwosu.
The judgment is particularly important because it addresses a question that goes beyond the ADC: Can the leadership of a political party be changed through administrative arrangements, appointments or ratification without following the democratic procedures prescribed by law?
The court’s answer, in the circumstances of this case, was NO.
But to appreciate the significance of this decision, we must first understand what the disagreement was actually about.
1. WHAT WAS THE DISPUTE ALL ABOUT?
Hon. Nafiu Bala Gombe maintained that he was elected Deputy National Chairman of the ADC on 12 October 2022 for a four-year tenure scheduled to end on 11 October 2026.
His argument was that he never voluntarily resigned from that position and that the subsequent emergence of Senator David Mark and Rauf Aregbesola as National Chairman and National Secretary respectively was not preceded by the democratic election required by the party’s constitution and Nigerian electoral law.
The defendants, on the other hand, maintained that Gombe had voluntarily resigned in May 2025. They argued that the National Executive Committee (NEC) of the party possessed the constitutional authority to dissolve the existing National Working Committee (NWC), reorganise the party’s leadership and appoint new officers.
They further argued that INEC had been notified, monitored the relevant proceedings and recognised the new leadership.
Therefore, the central question was simple:
Did the ADC lawfully change its national leadership, or did it bypass the democratic procedures required by law?
That was the real battle before the court.
2. THE MOST IMPORTANT FINDING: THE ALLEGED RESIGNATION LETTER
This is arguably one of the most consequential aspects of the judgment.
The defendants relied heavily on a purported resignation letter dated 17 May 2025, which they claimed was written and signed by Hon. Nafiu Bala Gombe.
Gombe denied the authenticity of the signature and maintained that he never resigned.
The court did something particularly important. Rather than simply accepting the certified copy of the resignation letter presented by the defendants, Justice Lifu compared the disputed signature with other signatures attributed to Gombe in documents already before the court.
The judge found material differences in the structure, formation, style and general manner of execution of the signatures.
Consequently, the court held that the purported resignation letter was fictitious or fabricated and rejected it as reliable evidence of a voluntary resignation.
In ordinary language, the court was saying:
You cannot remove someone from an elected political office by producing a resignation letter that the court finds was not genuinely signed by that person.
This finding is particularly significant because the alleged resignation was the foundation of the defendants’ argument that Gombe had relinquished his position before the emergence of the new leadership.
Without a valid resignation, that justification substantially collapsed.
However, the judgment did not amount to a criminal conviction of any individual for forgery. Its finding concerned the authenticity and evidential value of the document in this civil proceedings.
3. CAN A POLITICAL PARTY APPOINT LEADERS WITHOUT HOLDING ELECTIONS?
This is the wider constitutional issue.
The defendants argued that the ADC National Executive Committee had sufficient powers under the party constitution to reorganise its leadership and make necessary appointments.
The court acknowledged that political parties have autonomy to manage their internal affairs.
However, the judge made an important distinction: party autonomy does not mean unlimited power.
Sections 223(1)(a) and 228(a) and (b) of the 1999 Constitution, together with Sections 82 and 83 of the Electoral Act 2022, establish requirements relating to democratic party structures and the election of members of party executive and governing bodies.
The court particularly relied on Section 82(3) of the Electoral Act, which requires elections into political party executive committees and governing bodies to be conducted democratically, allowing members or duly elected delegates to participate and vote for candidates of their choice.
In simple language:
A political party may have an internal constitution, but that constitution cannot authorise it to disregard the national Constitution and applicable electoral laws.
A party cannot simply assemble a group of individuals, give them executive titles and subsequently declare that the process was democratic.
Where the law requires an election, an appointment or administrative ratification cannot automatically substitute for that election.
4. WHAT WAS INEC’S ROLE, AND WHY DID THE COURT DISAGREE WITH ITS POSITION?
INEC was the fourth defendant.
The Commission’s role was important because it received notice of the ADC’s 99th NEC meeting held on 29 July 2025, attended the meeting, produced a report and subsequently recognised the emergence of the new leadership.
The defendants relied on these actions to support the legality of the new arrangement.
However, Justice Lifu made a very important distinction between monitoring a meeting and validating the legality of decisions taken at that meeting.
The judge essentially held that INEC’s attendance and subsequent recognition could not cure a process that had failed to satisfy mandatory constitutional and statutory requirements.
In everyday language:
INEC can witness a meeting, but its presence does not automatically make every decision taken at that meeting lawful.
This is a significant observation for the Nigerian political system.
It reinforces the principle that the Electoral Commission is a regulator, not an institution with the authority to override the Constitution.
5. DID THE COURT HAVE THE RIGHT TO INTERFERE IN THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF ADC?
This was one of the strongest preliminary arguments advanced by the defendants.
Their position was that the court should not interfere in the internal leadership arrangements of a voluntary political association.
They also argued that Gombe lacked the legal standing to institute the case, that he had failed to exhaust the party’s internal dispute-resolution mechanisms and that the suit was an abuse of court process.
The judge rejected these objections.
The court distinguished between an ordinary disagreement over party administration and an allegation that a political party had violated express constitutional and statutory requirements.
The distinction is important.
Courts generally exercise restraint in political party affairs. They are not expected to decide every disagreement over who should occupy a party office.
However, where an allegation concerns a violation of the Constitution or electoral legislation, the matter may become justiciable.
In simpler terms:
A political party is free to make many internal decisions, but it is not free to break the law in the process.
The court therefore held that Gombe had sufficient legal interest to institute the proceedings and that the existence of internal party mechanisms did not automatically prevent judicial intervention in this particular dispute.
6. WHO ACTUALLY WON THE CASE?
On the substantive issues, Hon. Nafiu Bala Gombe substantially succeeded.
The court made several important declarations:
First, INEC has a duty to ensure that the ADC complies with the constitutional and statutory provisions governing the election of its executive and governing bodies.
Second, INEC was not entitled to validate or give effect to the outcome of the 99th NEC meeting of 29 July 2025 as a lawful basis for recognising the disputed leadership arrangement.
Third, the court declared that the emergence of the second and third defendants as national officers through the disputed process was wrongful, null, void and of no effect.
Fourth, the court declared that the actions and decisions taken by the disputed national officers from 29 July 2025 were null and void.
Fifth, the court directed that Gombe be recognised as the only elected member of the ADC’s National Working Committee whose four-year tenure was stated in the judgment to remain in effect, with the corresponding right to supervise the party’s affairs.
Sixth, the court set aside the decisions and resolutions of the 99th NEC meeting relating to the disputed leadership arrangement.
Seventh, the court issued perpetual injunctions restraining INEC from recognising the disputed officers in the capacities challenged and restraining those officers from continuing to parade themselves as members or officers of the party’s national executive structures.
Finally, the court dismissed the third defendant’s counterclaim in its entirety.
There was no order as to costs.
7. DOES THIS AUTOMATICALLY MAKE NAFIU BALA GOMBE THE NATIONAL CHAIRMAN?
This is where careful interpretation becomes necessary.
The judgment recognises Gombe as the only elected member of the National Working Committee whose tenure remained in effect and as legally entitled to supervise the affairs of the party.
However, the judgment should not be casually presented as an express declaration that he was elected National Chairman.
Those are not necessarily the same legal positions.
The court’s specific declaration concerns his elected position and the right to supervise the party’s affairs. Any further question about the precise composition of the party’s leadership must be understood within the actual orders and applicable party constitution.
There is another important consideration.
Gombe’s original four-year tenure, according to the judgment, commenced on 12 October 2022 and was due to expire on 11 October 2026. The judgment itself was delivered on 5 November 2026.
This timing raises a legitimate question about the practical effect of the declaration after the stated tenure had expired.
The judgment must therefore be read carefully, particularly in determining the extent of any continuing entitlement and the appropriate next steps for the party.
It would be misleading to ignore this issue.
8. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR DAVID MARK AND AREGbesOLA?
The judgment is a serious legal setback for the leadership arrangement involving Senator David Mark and Rauf Aregbesola.
The court has declared that their emergence through the process challenged in the suit was not established to have complied with the mandatory democratic requirements.
The injunctions also restrict the recognition and continued assertion of their disputed positions within the party’s national executive structures.
However, this is a judgment about the legality of the process through which the officers emerged. It is not a declaration that either individual is permanently disqualified from holding political office or participating in the ADC.
The issue is the process, not their personal eligibility.
9. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR THE ADC AS A POLITICAL PARTY?
This is perhaps the most serious political implication.
The ADC is facing a leadership and organisational challenge at a particularly sensitive period in Nigeria’s political calendar.
The judgment raises questions about the validity of decisions taken by the disputed leadership, the authority to manage party affairs, the recognition of national officers and the legitimacy of structures established through the contested process.
It also creates an urgent need for the party to establish a lawful and constitutionally compliant leadership arrangement.
The party cannot afford to allow its internal dispute to become a permanent institutional crisis.
Political parties are supposed to provide credible platforms for political participation, not become arenas where competing groups attempt to establish authority through administrative manoeuvres.
10. CAN THE JUDGMENT BE APPEALED?
Yes.
The judgment is a decision of the Federal High Court. Any dissatisfied party may exercise the constitutional right of appeal through the appropriate judicial process, subject to the applicable procedural requirements.
It is important to understand that the possibility of an appeal does not, by itself, erase the judgment or automatically suspend its operation.
A party seeking to challenge or suspend the practical effect of the orders must pursue the appropriate legal remedies.
The appellate courts will ultimately have the opportunity to examine any properly presented grounds of appeal.
Until then, the judgment remains an operative decision of the Federal High Court, subject to any subsequent court order.
11. OUR CANDID OBSERVATION: A WARNING TO NIGERIAN POLITICAL PARTIES
There is a larger lesson here for Nigeria’s political establishment.
Political parties cannot preach democracy to the Nigerian electorate while abandoning democratic procedures within their own organisations.
The process of choosing party leaders matters just as much as the process of choosing candidates for public office.
If a political party’s constitution requires an election, its leaders cannot substitute appointments, informal arrangements or subsequent ratification for the prescribed democratic process.
Equally, INEC must understand that its regulatory responsibility goes beyond receiving notices and attending political party meetings. Its actions must remain consistent with the Constitution and Electoral Act.
For the ADC, the immediate challenge is to manage the consequences of this judgment without allowing the crisis to destroy the party’s institutional capacity.
For other political parties, the message is equally clear: internal democracy is not optional.
CONCLUSION: THE LAW MUST BE STRONGER THAN POLITICAL POWER
The most important lesson from this judgment is that political authority must have a lawful foundation.
A political office cannot be sustained merely because a group of powerful individuals agrees that someone should occupy it.
Neither political influence, administrative convenience nor institutional recognition can replace a mandatory democratic process.
However, this judgment should also remind political actors that litigation alone cannot build a sustainable political party. What Nigeria needs is a political culture in which constitutions are respected, internal disagreements are resolved through credible democratic processes and the courts are approached only when necessary to protect legal rights.
The ADC leadership dispute may yet travel through the appellate courts. But the constitutional questions raised by this judgment deserve serious national attention.
Democracy cannot survive on the strength of what political leaders agree among themselves. It must survive on the strength of the laws they are all required to obey.
Yusuf Musa | CCEO, CCS
Hadiza Usman Jega Esq. | CCS LEGAL
Centre For Contemporary Studies
Abuja-Nigeria
November 12, 2026
