Federal High Court Nullifies Atiku ADC Candidacy, Sacks Mark NWC

• The Federal High Court nullified the leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) led by David Mark.
• The court also invalidated the presidential candidacy of Atiku Abubakar for the 2027 elections, along with other party nominations.
• Justice Peter Lifu ruled that Mark's leadership violated the ADC constitution, Electoral Act, and the 1999 Constitution.
• The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) was ordered not to recognize decisions from the party's July 27, 2025, NEC meeting.
• The suit, FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025, was filed by Nafiu Bala Gombe, challenging the process of Mark's emergence as interim leader.

This ruling serves as a stark reminder of the judiciary's role in ensuring internal democracy and adherence to legal frameworks within political organizations.

The Federal High Court in Abuja, presided over by Justice Peter Lifu, recently delivered a significant ruling that nullified the leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) headed by former Senate President David Mark. This judicial decision, issued on a Thursday, specifically invalidated all actions undertaken by the Mark-led executive, including the party's presidential primary. Consequently, the candidacy of former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar for the 2027 general elections, which emerged from that primary, was also declared void.

Further extending its reach, the court's judgment also nullified the appointment of Rauf Aregbesola, who is currently the interim National Secretary of the party and former Minister of Interior, as the party's National Secretary. Additionally, the appointments of other national officers and all candidate nominations put forward by the ADC for the upcoming 2027 elections were similarly invalidated. The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) was explicitly directed by the court not to acknowledge or act upon any decisions stemming from the party's 99th National Executive Committee meeting, which took place on July 27, 2025. This comprehensive ruling effectively dismantled the existing party structure and its electoral preparations. The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has indicated its intention to appeal this judgment, making the final resolution of the party's leadership and electoral preparations still pending.

Justice Lifu's ruling in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025 was predicated on the finding that the emergence of the David Mark-led leadership contravened fundamental provisions of the ADC constitution, relevant sections of the Electoral Act, and the 1999 Constitution. The legal challenge was initiated by Nafiu Bala Gombe, who serves as a factional National Chairman of the ADC and previously held the position of Deputy National Chairman for the North-East. Bala Gombe's suit named the ADC and four other entities as respondents, contesting the legitimacy of how Mark and other members of the caretaker committee assumed control.

The genesis of this significant African Democratic Congress leadership dispute traces back to the resignation of the party's former National Chairman, Ralph Nwosu. Following Nwosu's departure, David Mark and other individuals formed a caretaker committee, subsequently emerging as the party's interim leaders. Bala Gombe's legal action specifically targeted the procedural irregularities surrounding this transition, arguing that the process violated established internal party rules and statutory requirements, leading to the court's intervention and the subsequent nullification of the Mark-led ADC NWC.

Nafiu Bala Gombe, the plaintiff in the case, lauded the Federal High Court for its independent, impartial, and courageous handling of what he described as a politically sensitive and nationally significant dispute. He emphasized that the trial judge's determination was based strictly on constitutional and statutory provisions, rather than political considerations. Bala highlighted that the judgment reinforced the crucial principle that political parties must operate within the confines of their own constitutions and the Electoral Act, asserting that the Electoral Act 2022 party compliance is not merely a suggestion but a mandatory requirement.

According to Bala, the court's decision underscores that political parties are not exempt from their own foundational documents. He articulated that where a party's constitution mandates a specific procedure for succession and leadership, that procedure must be rigorously adhered to. He further contended that judicial intervention becomes imperative when political parties fail to comply with their established rules and procedures, as such actions are essential to safeguard democracy, uphold the rule of law, and prevent anarchy within the political system. This ruling serves as a stark reminder of the judiciary's role in ensuring internal democracy and adherence to legal frameworks within political organizations.

This ruling underscores the critical importance for political parties and their legal advisors to ensure strict adherence to internal party constitutions and the Electoral Act. Lawyers advising political entities or candidates must meticulously review governance procedures and candidate selection processes to prevent legal challenges that could lead to the nullification of leadership or candidacies, as demonstrated by the court's intervention to uphold internal democracy and statutory compliance.

Source: Original reporting via The PUNCH