By Rufa’i Ahmed Alkali, Ph. D
Introduction
The unfolding crisis in the African Democratic Congress (ADC) has generated considerable political excitement, controversy and public debate across Nigeria. Following the judgment of the Federal High Court, Abuja, delivered on Thursday, 5 November 2026, which invalidated the leadership of the party under Senator David Mark and affected the decisions taken under that leadership, including the process that produced former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar as its presidential candidate for the 2027 general elections, political reactions have been swift and sharply divided.
Predictably, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Nigerian judiciary have become the principal targets of criticism and accusations of political manipulation.
While such reactions may be understandable within the charged atmosphere of Nigerian partisan politics, they do not necessarily represent an accurate understanding of the circumstances that produced the present crisis. Political emotions, however intense, cannot substitute for historical facts. Neither should political suspicion be elevated to the status of established evidence.
The central argument of this interventoon is that the present ADC crisis cannot be properly discussed and understood as an isolated judicial event or simply as an alleged conspiracy by the ruling party to weaken the opposition. Its origins are traceable to internal leadership disagreements, contested questions of constitutional authority, unresolved succession arrangements and the controversial circumstances surrounding the emergence of a new political leadership in July 2025.
The crisis therefore has both historical and institutional dimensions.
To understand its nature, implications and possible consequences for Nigerian democracy, it is necessary to reconstruct its evolution, examine the relevant judicial interventions and assess the political calculations, and miscalculations that contributed to the present situation.
The fundamental question is not simply who benefits politically from the ADC crisis, but how the crisis originated, what the courts were called upon to determine and whether the political actors involved respected the constitutional and institutional requirements governing the party.
The ADC Crisis Did Not Begin in Aso Rock
The first important point to establish is that the ADC leadership crisis predates the election of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu in 2023.The roots of the ADC crisis go back to 2022, when disagreements emerged between the then National Chairman, Chief Ralph Okey Nwosu, and some aggrieved members and stakeholders of the party.
At the centre of the disagreement was the tenure of the National Working Committee (NWC), which had emerged from the party’s National Convention of August 2018.
The four-year tenure of the NWC was due to expire in August 2022. However, an emergency National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting was held on 25th August, 2022 and approved an extension of the tenure of the existing national leadership.
This decision generated considerable opposition within the party.
Aggrieved members challenged the legality of the extension, arguing that the party constitution did not permit the National Executive Committee (NEC) to extend the tenure of national officers in the manner adopted. The disagreement eventually resulted in litigation at the Federal High Court, Abuja.
This historical background is important because it establishes the fact that the ADC had already developed serious internal constitutional and leadership disagreements several years before the emergence of the opposition coalition associated with Atiku Abubakar and David Mark.
Consequently, any discussion or analysis of the ADC that attributes the entire crisis to President Tinubu, the APC or the present administration without acknowledging these earlier developments is incomplete and could be misleading.
The Federal High Court Judgement Of December 2022
On 20th December 2022, Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court, Abuja, delivered judgment in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1541/2022, instituted by Kingsley Temitope Ogga and other aggrieved party members.
The plaintiffs challenged the legality of the tenure extension of Chief Ralp Nwosu’s NWC approved by the ADC’s National Executive Committee.
In its ruling, the court held that the tenure of the Chief Ralph Nwosu-led National Working Committee had expired and that the attempt to extend it through the procedure adopted was inconsistent with the party constitution.
The court consequently nullified the purported extension and the affected actions of the Nwosu-led executive.
It also directed the party to conduct a special convention for the election of its national officers and recognised Senator Patricia Akwashiki as national chairman in the circumstances of the dispute before it.
The significance of this judgment cannot be overstated.
It established another fact that the ADC’s internal leadership disagreements had already reached the courts in 2022. It also demonstrated that the party’s leadership problems were not merely political disagreements but involved substantive questions of constitutional compliance and/or non compliance.
There is, however, an important legal distinction to state.
The 2022 judgment and the subsequent litigation involving Nafiu Bala Gombe and the David Mark-led leadership are separate proceedings. Although they are historically connected, the earlier judgment should not be interpreted as having automatically determined every question arising from the 2025 leadership transition.
The precise legal effect of the earlier proceedings, including the subsequent appeal history, must be considered separately.
Nevertheless, one fact remains beyond reasonable dispute: the ADC’s leadership crisis was already well established before the present Atiku Abubakar coalition adopted the party. Here, it is obvious, neither President Tinubu nor the APC created the original dispute that produced the 2022 litigation.
The Arrival Of The Opposition Coalition And a New Phase Of ADC Crisis
The second major phase of the ADC crisis emerged in 2025, when prominent opposition politicians began exploring a common political platform ahead of the 2027 general elections.
Among those involved were former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar, former Senate President David Mark, former Osun State Governor Rauf Aregbesola and other influential political figures.
Their decision to adopt the ADC as a common political platform was not inherently objectionable.
As in all liberal democraticies, coalitions, alliances and mergers are legitimate instruments through which political parties and tendencies aggregate their members interests, resources and electoral strengths.
Indeed, Nigeria’s political history, since political independence, provides several examples of such arrangements.
However, there is an important distinction between adopting an existing political party as a coalition platform and outright assuming control of its established leadership structures, without following due process.
A political party is not the private property of its founder, national chairman or any individual political heavyweight.
It is an institutional organisation governed by laws, its constitution, established procedures and recognised organs.
Consequently, the arrival of prominent politicians, irrespective of their national standing, financial resources or political influence, does not automatically confer on them the right to assume control of an existing party.
The process must be consistent with the party constitution and applicable electoral legislation.
Failure to undersand this distinction is critical towards appreciating the central issues and controversies surrounding the emergence of the David Mark-led leadership in the ADC.
The Nafiu Bala Question
One of the most important issues in the ADC controversy concerns the position of Honourable Nafiu Bala Gombe, who was Deputy National Chairman of the party. Without prejudice to the ealier litigations concerning the status of Chief Ralph Nwosu as ADC National Chairman, when he and other members of the existing national leadership finally announced their resignation in July 2025, a fundamental constitutional question arose:
Who was legally entitled to take over and assume the leadership of the party following the resignation of the National Chairman?
Nafiu Bala maintained that he had not resigned his position and that the ADC constitution entitled him, as the remaining Deputy National Chairman, to assume the leadership pending the emergence of a properly constituted national executive.
His argument was essentially one of constitutional succession.
On the other hand, the Atiku coalition-backed group proceeded with the emergence of Senator David Mark as Interim National Chairman and Rauf Aregbesola as National Secretary following the party’s 99th National Executive Committee meeting of 29 July 2025.
The circumstances surrounding that meeting and the process through which the new leadership emerged subsequently became the subject of litigation.
The important issue was not whether David Mark, Atiku Abubakar or other coalition leaders possessed the political experience and qualifications to lead the ADC. The issue was whether the procedure through which they assumed the party’s leadership complied with the ADC constitution and applicable electoral laws.
That distinction is fundamental.
Political legitimacy and legal legitimacy are related, but they are not necessarily identical.
A political arrangement may enjoy the support of influential individuals and even substantial sections of a party without necessarily satisfying the constitutional requirements governing the emergence of its officers.
This was the central institutional question that the courts were eventually called upon to examine and pass judgement upon.
Mistake of Confusing Political Influence with Institutional Authority
One of the most documented literature regarding the recurring weaknesses of Nigerian party politics is the tendency to confuse political influence with institutional authority. A former Vice-President, former Senate President, former governor or political heavyweight does not automatically acquire the right to control a political party simply by joining it or participating in a coalition and merger process.
Political influence must operate within established institutional rules and regulations.
In a properly negotiated political coalition involving an existing party and new entrants, there should be consultations, negotiations, mutual accommodation and an agreed framework with the legacy members for the distribution of responsibilities.
Such arrangements and sharing formular should not be restricted to the national leadership.
They should extend, as appropriate, to the zonal, state, local government and ward structures.
This is particularly important where the existing party already has members, officers, stakeholders and established political structures accross the country.
Unfortunately, the circumstances surrounding the ADC transition in 2025 created the impression that the incoming coalition leaders concentrated primarily on securing the national leadership and the political structures necessary for their immediate political objectives of finding a political platform, without sufficiently reconciling the interests and grievances of some of the legacy members.
Whether this resulted from deliberate political calculation or an inadequate appreciation of the internal dynamics of ADC as a party, the consequences were significant and have far reaching.
Obviously, the initial disagreements within the ADC were aggravated, and the party became even more divided and contentous.
Clearly, a sustainable political party cannot be built by treating its existing members as inconsequential simply because new entrants possess greater political visibility, resources or electoral ambitions.
The lesson is straightforward: political accommodation is not a substitute for constitutional compliance, and constitutional compliance is not a substitute for genuine internal democracy.
Both are necessary, and reinforce each other.
The ADC Constitution And the Electoral Act: Why Legal Questions Matter.
In Nigeria, just as in most modern democracies, every registered political party operates under a constitution.
That constitution is not an ornamental document to be invoked only when convenient.
The Constitution establishes the procedures for electing officers, filling vacancies, convening meetings, conducting conventions and resolving internal disagreements.
The ADC controversy raises even more important questions concerning the interpretation and application of the Constitutional provisions. The questions are:
what procedures govern the resignation of a National Chairman?
Who takes over and assumes leadership when the office of the National Chairman becomes vacant?
What constitutes a properly convened National Executive Committee meeting?
What procedures must be followed when appointing Interim National Officers?
Can an interim leadership exercise powers reserved for a properly elected National Working Committee? What is the role of the National Convention?
These are not merely administrative questions. They go to the heart of internal party democracy.
The Electoral Act 2022 also provides a statutory framework governing political party administration, leadership processes, internal democratic procedures and the conduct of party conventions and congresses.
The provisions governing notification of party meetings and the monitoring of relevant activities by the Independent National Electoral Commission are particularly important.
It is therefore necessary to distinguish between the political freedom of parties to organise themselves and their obligation to comply with the laws governing their registration and activities.
Political parties enjoy considerable autonomy, but that autonomy does not place them above their own constitutions or the laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
Equally, the judiciary is always expected to exercise judicial restraints where disputes concern matters exclusively internal to political parties, while recognising that questions involving constitutional compliance, statutory obligations and justiciable legal rights may properly come before the courts.
The challenge is to maintain the appropriate balance between party autonomy and the rule of law.
The Supreme Court Intervention of 30th April 2026 – Understanding its Real Implications
Another important development in the ADC crisis was the intervention of the Supreme Court on 30th April, 2026.
The dispute had earlier resulted in proceedings before the Court of Appeal, which made an order directing the maintenance of the status quo ante bellum.
That development had implications for INEC’s treatment of the competing leadership claims.
However, the matter eventually reached the Supreme Court. In its decision of 30th April 2026, the Supreme Court set aside the Court of Appeal’s status quo ante bellum order and directed that the substantive case return to the Federal High Court for an expeditious hearing.
This intervention was significant.
The Supreme Court did not rule on a final determination of the substantive question of who was constitutionally entitled to lead the ADC.
Rather, the Supreme Court’s decision cleared the way for the substantive dispute to be heard and determined by the trial court.
This distinction deserves particular emphasis.
There is a fundamental difference between an appellate court resolving an interlocutory or procedural question and finally determining the substantive rights of the parties. The two should never be confused.
Consequently, any political interpretation suggesting that the Supreme Court had conclusively settled the ADC leadership dispute in favour of either faction of the ADC was premature. Those who celebrated the April 30th Supreme Court ruling did so too early. The matter was returned to the trial court for substantive adjudication.
That was the judicial process that eventually culminated in the judgment of 5th November, 2026.
The Federal High Court Judgement of 5th November, 2026: A New Twist
On Thursday, 5th November 2026, Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court, Abuja, delivered judgment in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025, instituted by Nafiu Bala Gombe.
The suit challenged the legality of the process through which the David Mark-led leadership emerged following the resignation of Chief Ralph Nwosu and other national officers.
The plaintiff questioned the legality of the party’s 99th National Executive Committee meeting and the subsequent emergence and recognition of the new national officers.
The court upheld the plaintiff’s claims and declared the emergence of the Mark-led leadership unconstitutional and invalid.
It also invalidated the actions and decisions taken by that leadership, including those relating to the party’s internal electoral processes and the nomination of candidates for the 2027 general elections.
The implications for the ADC were huge.
Among other consequences, the judgment affected the political and legal foundation of the processes such as the party primaries that produced Atiku Abubakar as the party’s presidential candidate and all other candidates for the 2027 general elections.
The defendants had challenged the suit on jurisdictional and other legal grounds, including the argument that the dispute concerned the internal affairs of a political party.
The trial court, however, proceeded to determine the substantive issues and granted the reliefs sought by the plaintiff.
It is important to recognise that a judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction carries legal consequences unless and until it is set aside, varied or otherwise affected through the appropriate judicial process by a higher court.
Equally important is, the fact that a court has delivered judgment, does not mean that its decision is immune from appellate review. The ADC has already exercised its constitutional right to challenge the judgment.
As of 6th November, 2026, the party had filed a Notice of Appeal at the Court of Appeal and an application for a stay of execution before the Federal High Court.
The application for a stay had not yet been determined before the week closed.
Therefore, the appellate process remains an important part of the unfolding controversy.
The proper response to a judgment considered legally erroneous is to challenge it through the established judicial process.
That is precisely what the appellate system is designed to accomplish.
Atiku Abubakar and the Political Calculation Behind the ADC choice
Beyond the legal issues, the ADC controversy raises, we also need to confront a legitimate question about the political calculations that informed Atiku Abubakar’s decision to adopt the party as his platform in the first place. It can be said that Atiku Abubakar is one of Nigeria’s most experienced political figures. He has occupied the office of Vice-President, contested presidential elections on several occasions and participated in major political realignments throughout the country’s Fourth Republic. However, he has often been criticised for taking the wrong decisions at the right time, and taking the right decisions at the wrong time.
Yet, his experience makes the strategic choices surrounding the ADC particularly worthy of examination.
The opposition coalition had other political possibilities to consider.
There were discussions about alternative platforms, including the Social Democratic Party (SDP), while some political actors also advocated the establishment of an entirely new political party. However, the coalition under the influence of Atiku finally settled on the ADC.
That was a political decision, and political decisions carry consequences – some profound consequences.
Again, the important question is to ask is, whether sufficient attention was paid to the ADC’s existing leadership disputes, constitutional arrangements, institutional weaknesses and the interests of its established stakeholders before the coalition committed itself to that platform.
Historically speaking, a political party already experiencing prolonged internal disagreements presents obvious institutional and legal and political risks for mergers and coalitions.
These risks should have been assessed before making the party the foundation of a major national political project.
It would therefore be simplistic and escapist to attribute every subsequent difficulty to external political interference when the party’s internal disagreements and competing leadership claims were already matters of public record.
The broader lesson is that political calculations must be supported by proper institutional and legal groundwork.
Political popularity, financial resources and elite profiles cannot, and should not substitute for due process and constitutional legitimacy.
Now, We Come to the Question: Where do Tinubu, and the APC Come Into All These?
This is perhaps one of the most politically contentious question in the entire controversy.
President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and the APC are, understandably, among the political actors whose interests may be affected by the actions and inactions of opposition political parties. This is especially so in an election year.
It is therefore reasonable to say that a divided opposition presents less challenges for a ruling party seeking re-election.
However, being a potential political beneficiary of another political party’s crisis is not the same thing as being responsible for creating that crisis.
There is a fundamental difference between political suspicion, political allegations and demonstrable evidence.
From all issues we have raised and discussed, it is clear, the ADC’s internal leadership disagreements predated the present controversy by several years.
The 2022 litigation arose from disagreements among ADC stakeholders over the tenure and constitutional authority of the existing national leadership.
The 2025 litigation arose from questions concerning succession, the resignation of existing officers, the legality of the 99th NEC meeting and the emergence of the Mark-led leadership.
The subsequent judicial proceedings followed from those disputes.
Unless credible evidence establishes that President Tinubu, the APC or any government institution unlawfully engineered these developments, it would be intellectually indefensible and dishonest, to attribute the entire crisis within opposition political parties to the ruling government.
This does not mean that allegations of political interference, if they are meritorious, should be dismissed with a wave of the hand.
However, in most African countries allegations involving the manipulation of opposition parties, abuse of state institutions or interference with judicial independence
are common, even where they can not be substantiated.
While Nigeria needs a strong, organised and credible opposition, the protection of opposition parties must not become an excuse for shielding them from their own constitutional obligations, to do the right thing, at the right time.
The same democratic standards must apply to the ruling party and opposition parties alike.
The judiciary must remain independent, impartial and courageous in the discharge of its constitutional responsibilities.
Its decisions must be respected, but they must also remain open to legitimate appellate scrutiny.
That is the essence of constitutional democracy.
The Lessons For Nigerian Party Politics
The ADC crisis offers important lessons that extend beyond the immediate political fortunes of Atiku Abubakar, David Mark, Nafiu Bala Gombe or any other individual.
First, political parties must be built around institutions rather than personalities.
A party that depends excessively on the authority of its founder, chairman or political financiers is vulnerable to internal instability whenever leadership changes occur.
Second, internal party democracy must be respected.
Party members are not spectators in an organisation whose leadership and future are determined by a handful of powerful individuals.
They are stakeholders whose rights and interests must be recognised through established constitutional procedures.
Third, political coalitions must be founded on genuine consultations and mutual accommodation.
New entrants must respect existing structures, while legacy members must recognise that political parties are capable of renewal and expansion through the admission of new political tendencies.
The challenge is to reconcile these interests through lawful and transparent arrangements, based on win win situation.
Fourth, political leaders must understand that legal and constitutional questions cannot be settled through press conferences, political declarations or the emotive mobilisation of supporters.
Fifth, the judiciary must be protected from partisan pressure.
The courts are indispensable to democratic governance because they provide an institutional mechanism for resolving disputes according to law rather than political influence.
Finally, political parties must recognise that electoral success requires more than political prominence and national visibility.
It requires organisational discipline, internal cohesion, institutional legitimacy and the confidence of party members.
These are some of the lessons that the ADC, other opposition political parties and even the ruling party in Nigeria must take seriously beyond 2027.
Concluding Remarks
Time to Seperate Facts From Political Emotions
The unfolding ADC crisis is an important test of Nigeria’s democratic institutions and political maturity.
It did not begin with President Tinubu. It did not begin with the APC. Neither did it begin with the Federal High Court judgment of 5th November, 2026.
Its origins lie in a series of internal disagreements, beginning with the controversy over the tenure of the Nwosu-led leadership in 2022 and subsequently extending to the contested succession arrangements and emergence of the David Mark-led leadership in 2025.
The judicial proceedings that followed were products, outcomes and consequences of those intermal disputes.
This historical facts must be understood before assigning responsibility to anyone.
You may support Atiku Abubakar. You may oppose President Tinubu. You may sympathise with David Mark or support Nafiu Bala Gombe.
Those are legitimate political preferences in a plural democratic society.
But political preferences should not prevent us from examining facts, respecting institutional processes and demanding accountability from all political actors.
Neither should criticism of a particular judgment be confused with hostility towards the judiciary as an institution.
The proper test of any judicial decision is the law, the evidence and the reasoning upon which it is based.
Where a party believes that a judgment is erroneous, the appellate process provides the appropriate avenue for redress.
Similarly, where allegations of political interference are made, they should be supported by credible evidence rather than assumptions based solely on who may benefit from the outcome.
Democracy is not sustained by the strength of political personalities, the size of campaign crowds or the financial resources of political coalitions.
It is sustained by institutions, constitutionalism, internal party democracy, respect for the rule of law and the willingness of political actors to submit themselves to established procedures.
If the ADC wishes to emerge from its present difficulties as a credible national political institution, it must resolve its internal leadership questions through lawful and constitutionally recognised processes.
The same obligation applies to every other political party in Nigeria.
Ultimately, the ADC controversy should not be reduced to a convenient narrative of Tinubu versus Atiku, APC versus opposition, or politicians versus the judiciary.
It is a much deeper institutional question about the nature of political parties, the limits of political influence, the supremacy of constitutions and the responsibilities of democratic institutions.
We must learn to separate historical facts from political propaganda, constitutional questions from partisan calculations, and legitimate judicial criticism from attacks on the independence of the judiciary.
Nigeria’s democracy deserves nothing less.
I rest my case.
Rufa’i Ahmed Alkali, Ph.D. is a Professor of Political Science and
Former Pro-Chancellor and Chairman, Governing Council, Federal University of Technology, Minna. He is currently the
National Chairman, National Movement for Tinubu–Shettima 2027 – Forward Nigeria.
