Nigeria’s political parties are expected to provide citizens with platforms to organise, participate in elections and choose their representatives, but persistent leadership disputes within the African Democratic Congress (ADC) are raising concerns about the choices available to voters ahead of the 2027 general elections.
Development Diaries reports that a Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday nullified the leadership of the ADC led by former Senate President David Mark and invalidated decisions taken under it, including the process that produced former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar as the party’s presidential candidate.
Justice Peter Lifu delivered the judgment in a suit filed by Nafiu Bala Gombe, a former deputy national chairman of the party, who challenged the process through which Mark and other members of the caretaker leadership assumed office.
The judgment has intensified a leadership dispute that has lasted for months, with rival factions laying claim to the party’s leadership. Gombe argued that he was entitled to assume the chairmanship following the resignation of former national chairman Ralph Nwosu, while the Mark-led faction maintained that its emergence followed the party’s internal processes.
The court upheld Gombe’s challenge, finding that the process that produced the caretaker leadership violated relevant provisions of the party’s constitution and electoral law.
It consequently set aside the leadership structure and nominations made under it.
The implications extend beyond the presidential ticket, as the judgment puts the nominations of other candidates who emerged through the disputed leadership structure in question.
The ADC has rejected the judgment and announced plans to appeal, while Atiku and members of the Mark-led leadership have questioned its legal basis.
In challenging the decision, the party has pointed to an earlier judgment delivered by Justice Musa Liman of the same Federal High Court on 02 July, 2026, which it says affirmed the legitimacy of the Mark-led leadership and directed the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to recognise it.
That earlier case was brought by House of Representatives member Leke Abejide and raised questions about jurisdiction, standing and the party’s internal dispute-resolution procedures.
Although Gombe’s suit was a separate proceeding, the ADC’s claim that the two decisions are inconsistent can only be assessed by examining the certified judgments, the specific legal issues considered in each case and the orders made by the respective judges.
The dispute comes at a sensitive point in the electoral calendar, with INEC having scheduled the presidential and National Assembly elections for 16 January, 2027. This leaves roughly ten weeks for the legal process to run its course and for the party to establish its position before the polls.
INEC must therefore determine how to respond to the latest judgment, including the status of candidates submitted under the disputed leadership. Its decisions must be guided by the court orders and applicable electoral laws, rather than the competing political interests of the two factions.
Nigeria’s political parties cannot credibly ask citizens to trust them with democratic governance when their own leadership arrangements remain contested.
Section 40 of the constitution guarantees every person the right to associate with others and form or belong to a political party, while Section 221 recognises the central role of political parties in sponsoring candidates for elections.
These constitutional provisions place party organisation and internal processes within the wider framework of democratic participation, making transparency and compliance with established rules essential to the credibility of the electoral process.
The Electoral Act and parties’ constitutions provide further rules governing their organisation, leadership and candidate nomination processes.
The ADC crisis illustrates the consequences when compliance with these rules becomes a subject of prolonged disagreement, particularly for members who participate in congresses, meetings and primaries expecting their outcomes to be respected.
As rival factions challenge the legitimacy of those processes, uncertainty extends to candidates, campaign organisations and supporters who have already committed time and resources to the elections.
Women, young people and persons with disabilities seeking greater representation in political decision-making may face additional barriers when leadership disputes disrupt access to party structures and nomination processes.
INEC has a responsibility to monitor political parties and ensure that their activities comply with the law. It must communicate clearly how it intends to implement the latest judgment and respond to any appeal or application for a stay of execution, while explaining the status of affected nominations so candidates and voters are not left to depend on competing statements from party spokespersons.
The judiciary equally has a responsibility to provide an effective means of resolving the competing claims within the time available. Meanwhile, both the party’s rival factions must respect the judicial process and pursue their claims through the available legal channels.
For voters, they should follow the court proceedings, seek information from INEC and demand explanations from party officials where leadership disputes threaten their participation.
Civil society organisations, youth and women’s groups, and disability rights advocates can equally monitor how the crisis affects access to party membership, nominations and political representation.
With the 2027 polls approaching, the ADC and the institutions responsible for overseeing the electoral process owe voters a timely resolution that protects their right to participate and make informed choices.
