ADC and Atiku Abubakar reject claims that the appeal court ruling invalidates the party’s 2027 candidates as rival factions clash over INEC nominations

A fresh legal dispute has intensified uncertainty within the African Democratic Congress (ADC) after the Court of Appeal upheld an order restraining state congresses organised by committees appointed by the party’s caretaker leadership led by Senator David Mark, prompting differing interpretations over its implications for the party’s preparations for the 2027 general elections.

Also read: Appeal Court upholds ban on ADC congresses

The ADC Appeal Court Ruling has fuelled political and legal debate, with supporters of former Vice President Atiku Abubakar dismissing suggestions that the judgment invalidates the party’s presidential ticket, while a rival faction claimed it had separately uploaded its own candidates to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) nomination portal.

In a majority judgment delivered by Justice Okon Abang, with Justice Donatus Okorowo concurring, the three-member appellate panel declined to overturn an order earlier granted by the Federal High Court in Abuja restraining the Mark-led caretaker committee from conducting state congresses through appointed committees.

The appellate court held that judicial intervention was necessary to “prevent anarchy and ensure the survival of democracy in Nigeria,” adding that disputes alleging constitutional violations could not be shielded as purely internal party affairs.

“Once a complaint before the court is anchored on a constitutional infraction, the shield of internal affairs drops and the veil is lifted for judicial intervention,” Justice Abang said.

The court consequently dismissed the appeal filed by the ADC, affirming the Federal High Court’s decision delivered on April 29.

However, the panel was divided. Presiding Justice Abba Mohammed, in a dissenting judgment, held that the dispute related to the internal affairs of a political party and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

The case originated from a suit filed by aggrieved ADC members, including Don Obinna, Johnny Derek, Obah C. Ehigiator, Olona Yinka, Dr Charles Omideji, Samuel Gyang and Obianyo Patrick, acting on behalf of the party’s State Chairmen and State Executive Committees.

They challenged the legality of committees constituted by the Mark-led caretaker leadership to conduct state congresses, arguing that only duly elected party organs possess such powers under the ADC Constitution.

In its reaction, the ADC, through its National Publicity Secretary Bolaji Abdullahi, disagreed with the judgment but maintained that it had no bearing on the party’s candidate selection process.

“The ADC notes the judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal in Abuja on Monday in a matter relating to party congresses for the election of ward, local government and state executive committees of the Party.

“We wish to assure members of the Party and the general public that this judgment has no effect whatsoever on the direct primaries through which the Party’s candidates have emerged at all levels,” Abdullahi said.

He confirmed that the party had begun the process of appealing the judgment, describing it as “legally unsustainable.”

Atiku Abubakar also rejected claims that the ruling had invalidated the party’s presidential nomination.

In a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, the former vice president said some political opponents were deliberately misrepresenting the court’s decision.

“The judgment being celebrated relates to the conduct of state congresses and the tenure of State Executive Committees.

It does not, from the facts available, amount to a judicial nullification of the ADC’s primary elections conducted under the Electoral Act,” the statement said.

“It is a settled principle of law that courts determine only the issues submitted before them. They neither manufacture disputes nor pronounce on matters that were never placed before them.”

Shaibu said the party had instructed its legal team to approach the Supreme Court for a final determination of the issues arising from the judgment.

The controversy deepened after a faction led by Nafiu Bala Gombe announced that it had uploaded its presidential and National Assembly candidates to INEC’s nomination portal, naming Professor Chris Uba as its presidential candidate and Dr Shamsuddeen Modibbo Barkindo as his running mate.

Gombe described the submission as being in compliance with the Electoral Act 2022 and INEC’s nomination guidelines.

Atiku’s media office, however, accused INEC of allegedly facilitating confusion by granting portal access to what it described as an unrecognised faction.

According to the statement, only the leadership headed by David Mark is recognised by the commission, making any parallel submission unlawful.

“The so-called ‘successful’ uploading of candidates by Nafiu Bala Gombe is neither grounded in law nor supported by INEC’s own guidelines,” the statement alleged.

The Mark-led ADC also dismissed the rival faction’s claims, insisting that INEC could not lawfully issue nomination portal access codes to competing leaderships within the same political party.

“The claim is a blatant lie. INEC does not issue nomination portal access or nomination codes to a leadership it does not recognise,” Abdullahi said.

He added that the party had already notified INEC of what it described as alleged forgery and unauthorised use of documents purportedly issued by the electoral commission and urged it to investigate the matter.

The ADC spokesman further maintained that the party is not factionalised and asserted that it had lawfully uploaded the details of Atiku Abubakar as its presidential candidate and Rotimi Amaechi as its vice-presidential candidate.

As the legal contest shifts towards the Supreme Court, the dispute highlights the increasing importance of internal party governance ahead of the 2027 elections.

Also read: ADC dissolves Kano executive, appoints caretaker committee

While the Appeal Court ruling addressed the legality of the party’s state congresses, the competing interpretations by rival camps underscore that questions surrounding candidate nominations and party leadership may remain the subject of further judicial scrutiny before the electoral process advances.