Why Court Invalidated Mark’s ADC Leadership

Wellington Jopelo

The Federal High Court judgment that removed former Senate President David Mark and other officials from the leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) was based on questions surrounding the authenticity of a resignation letter, the limits of the party’s administrative powers and the failure to establish that its new executives emerged through a democratic election.

In its detailed judgment delivered on November 5, 2026, Justice Peter Lifu examined the circumstances surrounding the leadership transition that brought Mark and former Minister of Interior, Rauf Aregbesola, into the party’s national leadership in July 2025.

The decision followed a suit filed by Nafiu Bala Gombe, a former Deputy National Chairman of the ADC, who challenged the process through which the new leadership emerged. The case, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025, raised questions about whether the party followed its constitution and the relevant provisions of the Electoral Act.

One of the major issues considered by the judge was a resignation letter allegedly written by Gombe on May 17, 2025. The defendants relied on the document to argue that he had voluntarily relinquished his position before the party’s leadership transition.

The letter, tendered as Exhibit ADC 1, was intended to establish that Gombe was no longer entitled to challenge the emergence of the Mark-led leadership because he had already resigned from his position.

However, Justice Lifu was not satisfied that the signature on the document belonged to Gombe. The judge compared it with other signatures attributed to the plaintiff on documents executed before a Commissioner for Oaths.

Following the examination, the court identified differences in the structure, formation and general appearance of the signatures. Justice Lifu consequently rejected the letter as reliable evidence of Gombe’s resignation and described it as fictitious or fabricated.

The judge’s finding was significant because the alleged resignation formed an important part of the defendants’ argument that Gombe had ceased to be an officer of the party before the disputed leadership arrangement.

The court also examined the extent of the National Executive Committee’s powers under Article 19(14) of the ADC constitution. The defendants had argued that the provision gave the NEC authority to dissolve the existing National Working Committee and make arrangements for a new leadership structure.

Justice Lifu acknowledged that political parties enjoyed a measure of independence in managing their internal affairs. However, he stressed that such autonomy could not be exercised outside the provisions of the Nigerian Constitution and applicable electoral laws.

In reaching his decision, the judge relied on Section 223(1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution, which requires political parties to provide for periodic democratic elections of their principal officers and executive committees.

He also considered Sections 82(1) and 82(3) of the Electoral Act 2022, alongside the Regulations and Guidelines for Political Parties, 2022.

The court’s position was that administrative powers granted to a party’s NEC could not be used to bypass mandatory democratic procedures for selecting national officers. In other words, the authority to manage party affairs did not automatically include the power to replace elected executives without following the required process.

Another important issue was whether the Mark-led executives had provided sufficient evidence that their emergence followed a democratic election.

The defendants relied on documents indicating that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) had been notified of the disputed NEC meeting held on July 29, 2025, and had monitored its proceedings.

However, Justice Lifu drew a distinction between notifying INEC about a party meeting and conducting an election in accordance with the law. He held that the commission’s presence at the meeting did not establish that party members or duly elected delegates were given the opportunity to participate and vote.

The judge therefore concluded that INEC’s monitoring of the meeting and subsequent recognition of the new executives could not validate a process that had not been shown to satisfy the statutory requirements for democratic elections.

The court also rejected the argument that the dispute was strictly an internal party matter beyond judicial intervention. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Peoples Democratic Party v. Sule Lamido & Ors., Justice Lifu held that courts could intervene where allegations involved violations of constitutional or statutory provisions.

He further rejected the argument that Gombe was required to exhaust the party’s internal dispute-resolution procedures before approaching the court, given the nature of the legal issues raised.

Having resolved the major issues in Gombe’s favour, the judge invalidated the emergence of Mark, Aregbesola and other affected officials as national officers of the ADC. He also nullified the resolutions of the party’s 99th NEC meeting of July 29, 2025, and restrained the affected officials from presenting themselves as legitimate national officers.

The court further directed that Gombe be recognised as the only elected member of the party’s National Working Committee whose four-year tenure remained valid and who was legally entitled to supervise the party’s affairs.

However, Justice Lifu made an important distinction by refusing to declare Gombe the automatic National Chairman of the party. The judge explained that the invalidity of the process that produced the disputed leadership did not automatically establish Gombe’s entitlement to succeed to a particular office.

Implications for Atiku’s 2027 ambition

Although the judgment has been widely discussed in relation to former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar’s 2027 presidential ambition, an important distinction exists between the court’s direct orders and their possible consequences for the party’s candidates.

The court’s decision invalidated actions and decisions taken by the Mark-led leadership from July 29, 2025. Since the leadership supervised the process through which Atiku emerged as the ADC presidential candidate, the ruling has raised questions about the legal foundation of his nomination.

Atiku was not expressly named in the operative orders as a person being individually disqualified. Nevertheless, the invalidation of decisions taken under the disputed leadership has created uncertainty over the validity of the primary election and other political activities conducted by the affected executives.

The ADC has rejected the judgment and commenced an appeal, insisting that the ruling should not be allowed to undermine its political activities ahead of the 2027 elections. The party has also challenged the legal basis of the decision.

The Independent National Electoral Commission is also expected to consider the certified judgment and its legal implications before determining the appropriate steps regarding the party’s leadership and electoral activities.

With the appeal process underway, the dispute has moved beyond a contest for control of the ADC’s national leadership. It has become a major legal battle over internal party democracy, the authority of party executives and the validity of decisions taken by political structures that are later declared unlawful by a court.

The outcome of the appeal is expected to be crucial to the ADC’s preparations for the 2027 general election and the political ambitions of those seeking to contest under its platform.

The central message of Justice Lifu’s judgment is that political parties must comply with constitutional and statutory requirements when selecting their leaders, and that internal party autonomy cannot be used to avoid the democratic procedures established by law.