By Dr. Buchi Nnaji

“A party that cannot resolve who chairs it should not expect voters to trust it with power.”

Nigerians are used to courtroom drama before elections. But the latest dispute within the African Democratic Congress should worry even those who do not care about Atiku Abubakar. Once again, a fight over who controls a political party has become a threat to the ballot itself.

On Thursday, Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court, Abuja, declared the David Mark-led leadership of the ADC illegal. He also invalidated decisions taken under that leadership, including the process that produced former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar as the party’s presidential candidate.

The ruling followed a suit by Nafiu Bala Gombe, a former ADC National Deputy Chairman for the North-East, who challenged the emergence of Mark and Rauf Aregbesola as the party’s national chairman and secretary. Justice Lifu held that the disputed leadership breached the ADC constitution and applicable electoral requirements, and directed INEC not to recognise decisions from the party’s July 27, 2025 National Executive Committee meeting. 

That is a severe blow to the ADC’s 2027 structure, but it is not automatically the end of Atiku’s candidacy. The ADC says it will appeal and seek a stay of execution where legally applicable; Atiku has also vowed to challenge the ruling at the Court of Appeal. Filing an appeal, however, does not by itself suspend a judgment; the party must obtain the necessary appellate relief, and its final position depends on the Certified True Copy and the court’s operative orders. 

The controversy is made more serious by an earlier ruling. On July 2, Justice Musa Liman of the same Federal High Court dismissed a separate challenge to the Mark-led leadership in a suit by House of Representatives member Leke Abejide. Justice Liman considered questions of jurisdiction, standing, and internal party remedies, and the ADC says the decision affirmed its leadership. 

Atiku’s camp now argues that the later judgment cannot displace a subsisting decision of a court of coordinate jurisdiction on the same subject. That argument may ultimately fail, but it cannot be dismissed as mere noise. If two Federal High Court judges can reach materially different conclusions on the legitimacy of the same party leadership, INEC, candidates, and voters are left guessing which order governs the ballot. 

Some will say the court merely enforced the law, and that argument deserves respect. If the Mark-led committee was genuinely unlawfully constituted, the courts should not validate illegality simply because an election is approaching or because a powerful politician is affected. Electoral convenience is not a licence for procedural shortcuts. 

But legality alone does not settle the democratic question. A court may be right to nullify an unlawful process and still expose a deeper institutional failure. The failure is that Nigeria’s parties allow leadership disputes to fester until they collide with nomination deadlines, leaving the system to choose between legal correctness and political disruption. 

The real scandal, therefore, is not only that Atiku’s ticket is in trouble. It is that a party’s internal governance failure has become a presidential-ballot crisis. The ADC positioned itself as a broad opposition platform, yet the ruling now threatens nominations beyond the presidential ticket. The party itself says it is awaiting the Certified True Copy to establish the judgment’s precise terms, scope, and operative orders before taking further steps. 

Nigeria needs more than outrage; it needs enforceable rules. Section 82 of the Electoral Act 2022 already requires a party to give INEC at least 21 days’ notice of a convention, congress, or meeting convened to elect executives or nominate candidates, and provides that failure to give such notice renders the meeting invalid.  INEC should enforce that requirement earlier and more consistently, while parties must document leadership transitions with dated notices, verified meetings, and clear records of the organs that authorised them. Conflicting rulings on the same party leadership should also be urgently clarified by the Court of Appeal, rather than left to unsettle an election calendar. 

Before we cheer or mourn Atiku, Nigerians should demand a party-primary system that resolves disputes early, transparently, and within the law. Otherwise, the next presidential election will be decided not only by voters, but by whoever reaches the courtroom last. 

About the Author  
Dr. Buchi Nnaji is a researcher, political analyst, and publisher of AnchorNews Media. He writes from Enugu on governance, elections, public accountability, and national development.

Editor’s Note  
This opinion column was written and published by Dr. Buchi Nnaji, publisher of AnchorNews Media. The views expressed are his own and do not represent the institutional editorial position of AnchorNews Media. The author has no affiliation with Atiku Abubakar, the African Democratic Congress, or any candidate or political party mentioned in this article.