Lawyers split over impact of ruling on ADC, Atiku, other candidates

The Federal High Court judgment nullifying the leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), led by David Mark, former Senate President, has raised questions about the party’s participation in the 2027 general elections, with lawyers divided over its implications for former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar and other candidates.

While a member of the ADC legal team insists that the ruling does not affect the candidates’ tickets, three other legal practitioners argue that it could invalidate the party’s nominations if it remains in force.

The judgment, delivered on Thursday by Justice Peter Lifu in Abuja, declared the Mark-led caretaker committee illegal and invalidated actions taken under its authority, including the process that produced Atiku as the party’s presidential candidate.

The court also nullified the emergence of Rauf Aregbesola as national secretary and other decisions taken by the leadership. It directed the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) not to recognise decisions reached at the party’s 99th National Executive Committee meeting on July 27, 2025.

The suit was filed by Nafiu Bala Gombe, a former ADC deputy national chairman, who challenged the process through which Mark and other members of the caretaker committee assumed control of the party.

The ruling has raised questions about the legal status of the ADC’s candidates ahead of the 2027 elections.

Realwan Okpanachi, a legal practitioner and member of the ADC legal team, said the judgment was a setback but argued that it did not invalidate the candidacies of Atiku and other ADC candidates.

He said their emergence was based on decisions taken by party members and was separate from the leadership dispute.

“The decision to elect Atiku as a candidate of the party, as well as other candidates, is that of the party and its members. It has nothing to do with the president of the party or the chairman of the party,” he said.

According to him, the candidates acquired their rights independently and the judgment could not affect their tickets.

“There is no way this judgment will have any effect on them. Their tickets are intact. Their candidacies are intact. So there is nothing affecting them,” he said.

Okpanachi also argued that courts lacked jurisdiction to interfere in the internal affairs of political parties, citing what he described as the Supreme Court’s position on the matter and provisions of the Electoral Act.

He said the ADC legal team had instructions to appeal the judgment and seek a stay of execution.

He also argued that the leadership dispute had become academic because the party had conducted another convention and elected its leadership, a development he said the court did not adequately consider.

Abdul Gobir of A.S. Gobir & Co offered a different interpretation, saying the judgment could leave the ADC without valid candidates if reports of the court’s orders accurately reflected its decision.

Gobir said he had not seen a copy of the judgment and could not give a comprehensive assessment of its legal implications.

“If what is in the media and social media that we have seen is correct, it goes without saying that Atiku and all the candidates on the platform of ADC can no longer be reckoned as candidates that were properly produced by a political party,” he said.

He explained that if the leadership that produced the candidates had been nullified, and its actions also set aside, their nominations could be affected.

Gobir also questioned the relationship between Thursday’s judgment and an earlier Federal High Court decision which, according to him, had affirmed the Mark-led leadership.

He said the full judgments would need to be examined to determine whether the latest ruling had set aside a decision of a court of coordinate jurisdiction.

“If this judgment delivered today has the effect of refuting and setting aside what the earlier court had done, certainly this latter judgment cannot stand,” he said.

Gobir said the ADC’s option was to appeal and seek a stay of execution, adding that the party might no longer have time to conduct fresh primaries.

He warned that the development could limit the choices available to voters.

“It is more or less frustrating the opposition party and forcing Nigerian people not to have options,” he said.

Solomon Apenja, an Abuja-based legal practitioner, also said the judgment could affect all candidates produced by the ADC leadership, including Atiku, if it remains in force.

Apenja said he had not studied the full judgment and was commenting based on media reports and the information available to him.

He argued that the ruling could invalidate the process through which the party’s candidates emerged.

“The judgment is capable of knocking them all off the ballot because what it means is that the process which brought them into contesting was flawed,” he said.

Apenja said the ADC could appeal and that the appellate courts could expedite the hearing before the 2027 elections.

However, he said that if the judgment remained in force, the party might be unable to field candidates. He added that the deadline for conducting fresh primaries and submitting new nominations might have passed.

He distinguished between presenting new candidates and substituting existing ones, arguing that substitution presupposed that valid candidates had already emerged.

“The implication of this judgment is that ADC does not have candidates at all to substitute,” he said.

Apenja said the implications extended beyond Atiku’s presidential ambition to opposition participation in the elections. He warned that the exclusion of a major opposition party could affect electoral competition.

S.O. Yahaya, a legal practitioner, also argued that the judgment had invalidated the candidacies of ADC members seeking governorship and other elective positions.

He said the ruling was based on the court’s finding against the caretaker committee that produced the candidates and therefore affected decisions taken by the committee.

Yahaya questioned the judgment’s relationship with an earlier Federal High Court decision delivered by Justice Musa Liman on July 2, 2026, which he said had affirmed the committee.

According to him, a court of coordinate jurisdiction cannot set aside the decision of another court of equal jurisdiction.

“If the plaintiff was not satisfied with the judgment delivered earlier by Honourable Justice Musa Liman on July 2, 2026, what they ought to have done was to appeal against the judgment, not to file another case before another court of coordinate jurisdiction,” he said.

Yahaya said the ADC’s option was to appeal, arguing that the party could no longer conduct fresh primaries or submit new nominations within the timelines provided by the Electoral Act.

He said the party could raise the issue of the earlier judgment before the Court of Appeal and expressed the view that the appeal could be heard before the 2027 elections.

Yahaya also argued that the ruling could affect voters who had chosen Atiku as their preferred candidate by limiting their ability to exercise their political rights.

The lawyers agreed that an appeal would be central to the ADC’s next steps but differed on whether the judgment had already affected the legal status of the party’s candidates.

The outcome of the appeal could determine whether the ADC can field candidates across elective positions in 2027.