ADC Dispute Deepens As Lawyer Challenges Interpretation Of Court Ruling On Atiku

The legal battle over the African Democratic Congress (ADC)’s leadership and its participation in the 2027 presidential election has taken another turn, with a party lawyer insisting that the recent Federal High Court judgment did not expressly cancel former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar’s presidential candidacy.

Kalu Kalu, who represents the ADC, said the November 5 judgment delivered by Justice Peter Lifu did not contain any specific order invalidating Atiku’s nomination or that of other candidates produced under the leadership of Senator David Mark.

Speaking during an interview on Channels Television on Thursday, Kalu argued that some public reactions to the ruling had gone beyond what the judge actually stated in the court’s orders.

He maintained that Nigerians were wrongly interpreting the decision as an outright cancellation of Atiku’s presidential ticket, insisting that the court did not make such an order.

“There is no portion of that judgment that voids the candidacy of Atiku Abubakar and the other candidates of the party,” the lawyer said.

The controversy followed the judgment in a suit filed by Nafiu Bala Gombe, a former ADC Deputy National Chairman, who challenged the emergence of the Mark-led leadership after the resignation of the party’s former National Chairman, Ralph Nwosu, and other executives in July 2025.

Justice Lifu nullified the emergence of Mark as National Chairman and former Interior Minister, Rauf Aregbesola, as National Secretary. The court also declared actions taken by the Mark-led National Working Committee from July 29, 2025, null and void.

The ruling further restrained the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising the disputed leadership and acting on decisions taken at the party’s 99th National Executive Committee meeting of July 27, 2025.

However, Kalu argued that the court’s decision on the party’s leadership should not automatically be interpreted as an express order cancelling Atiku’s nomination.

The lawyer’s position introduces a fresh legal argument into the dispute, which has created uncertainty over the ADC’s leadership structure and the status of candidates selected under the Mark-led committee.

The interpretation also differs from the position expressed by counsel to the plaintiff, who said after the judgment that the ruling effectively left the ADC without candidates for the 2027 elections.

The ADC has rejected the judgment and announced plans to challenge it. The party has also filed an appeal and an application for a stay of execution, seeking to prevent steps that could affect its participation in the elections while the legal dispute continues.

INEC is also expected to examine the certified true copy of the judgment and obtain legal advice before determining its position on the matter.

With the presidential election scheduled for January 16, 2027, the disagreement now centres not only on who controls the ADC but also on the legal consequences of the judgment for candidates produced under the disputed leadership.

The Court of Appeal’s consideration of the challenge and INEC’s interpretation of the court orders are likely to be important in determining the next stage of the party’s electoral preparations.

About The Author