10 key things to know about Justice Lifu’s judgment affecting ADC, Atiku, By Abdulrahman Abdulaziz

The political landscape has been thrown into fresh turbulence after the Federal High Court delivered a judgment by Justice Peter Lifu that voided the leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) under Senator David Mark and nullified Atiku Abubakar’s presidential candidacy for the 2027 elections.

Join the Premium Times WhatsApp Community For Quick Access To News and Happenings Around You.

Here are 10 key things to know about the judgment, the events that led to it, and the underlying political battles.

1. The Core Ruling and Immediate Casualties
Justice Peter Lifu’s judgment nullified the leadership of the Senator David Mark-led National Working Committee (NWC) of the ADC. Alongside sacking the party leadership, the court invalidated the primary elections conducted under their watch, effectively stripping Atiku Abubakar of his 2027 presidential nomination and nullifying the candidacies of other party flagbearers.

2. Triggered by the North-East Zonal Leadership Dispute
The legal onslaught against the Mark-led leadership began with a suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025, filed by Nafiu Bala Gombe, the former ADC National Deputy Chairman (North-East). Gombe challenged the legitimacy of the transition process that installed the new leadership after the resignation of the former National Chairman, Chief Ralph Nwosu.

3. The “Haphazard” Takeover by the Atiku Camp
The crisis began with a sudden, intense political realignment that saw the Atiku camp sweep into the ADC. Critics and aggrieved party stalwarts described the influx as a “haphazard takeover,” arguing that political heavyweights hijacked the party’s structures overnight, brushed aside internal party mechanisms, and sidelined foundational stakeholders who had built the platform over the years.

4. The Fierce Battle for Party Control
The takeover triggered an internecine war for the soul and structure of the ADC. Factional leaders and aggrieved members—such as Nafiu Bala Gombe—argued that the installation of Senator David Mark, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola (as National Secretary), and other caretaker committee members blatantly violated the party’s constitution and provisions of the Electoral Act. This internal friction morphed into a fierce proxy war over who legitimately controlled the party apparatus.

5. Escalation of Interlocutory Issues to the Supreme Court
As the battle for control intensified, factions rushed to court, triggering a flurry of interlocutory injunctions, counter-injunctions, and appeals. These interlocutory battles moved swiftly through the court hierarchy, eventually landing on the Supreme Court docket as camps sought interim legitimacy or tried to block opponents from running party affairs.

Stay Ahead with Premium Times

Follow us on Google News and never miss breaking stories, investigations, and in-depth reporting.

6. The Trial Court Remand Order
At a previous stage of the protracted legal tussle, appellate reviews and procedural assessments led to orders directing parties back to the trial court. Rather than resolving the substantive issues at the appellate level immediately, higher courts returned the matter to the Federal High Court for a proper trial and determination of the core substantive claims regarding leadership rights and structural compliance.

7. Yesterday’s Judgment and Findings on Infractions
Following the procedural trajectory, Justice Lifu took up the substantive case and ruled in the plaintiff’s favour. The court held that the emergence of the Mark-led NWC violated both the ADC constitution and the Electoral Act, making all actions, congresses, and primary elections conducted under their administration legally unsustainable and void.

8. Atiku and the ADC’s Sharp Condemnation
Reacting swiftly to the judgment, Atiku Abubakar (through his campaign organisation) condemned the ruling, labelling it a panicked move by the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) to weaken the opposition. The ADC similarly rejected the verdict, characterising it as legally indefensible and a coordinated assault on multi-party democracy in Nigeria. The embattled politician, however, remained silent on the undemocratic role he and his colleagues played in stoking the crisis.

9. Jubilation from the Opposing Faction
Conversely, the faction loyal to Nafiu Bala Gombe hailed Justice Lifu’s verdict as a triumph of the rule of law. Proponents of this view argued that political parties cannot treat their internal constitutions with impunity and that leadership must emerge through transparent, lawful processes rather than imposition.

10. The Next Legal Frontier: Heading to the Appeal Court
The legal war is far from over. Representatives of the ADC and affected camps have announced their resolve to challenge yesterday’s judgment at the Court of Appeal. With the 2027 general elections drawing closer, the legal status of the party’s leadership and its presidential ticket hangs in a delicate balance, setting the stage for another high-stakes judicial showdown.

Ultimately, the Atiku camp stands as the true architect of the ADC’s current misfortune. By treating the party’s internal democracy with impunity and arbitrarily hijacking its leadership structures overnight, they sowed the seeds of bitter division and legal vulnerability. By ignoring due process and alienating foundational stakeholders, they have nobody else to blame but themselves for the party’s present ordeals.

Nafiu Bala Gombe had filed an ex parte application and instituted a legal suit at the Federal High Court on 2 September, 2025, challenging the legitimacy of the party’s leadership under the David Mark-led faction.

In late 2025 and early 2026, The case experienced prolonged delays in the Federal High Court under Justice Emeka Nwite, prompting grievances from the plaintiff over the slow pace of hearing the substantive matter. Some of Nafiu Bala Gombe’s supporters alleged that Justice Nwite is close to Peter Obi and that the judge dragged the case to favour him. Mr Obi was a member of the party at the time.

Following the stagnation at the lower court, Nafiu Bala Gombe approached the Court of Appeal to challenge the delays and seek intervention regarding the handling of the judicial process. The court granted status quo ante bellum, which the ADC challenged at the nation’s apex court.

The legal battle then moved to the apex court, which subsequently reviewed the procedural delays and dispute. The Supreme Court directed that the matter be remitted back to the Federal High Court, specifically instructing an expedited trial of the substantive case (which was later reassigned and handled by Justice Peter Lifu).

29th July–2nd September 2025: Subject matter and commencement

The suit, filed on 2nd September 2025, arose from the emergence and recognition of national officers at the African Democratic Congress (ADC)’s 99th NEC meeting on 29th July 2025. The Plaintiff alleged that the requisite notice or a democratic election had not preceded their appointment.

– The Plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive reliefs challenging both the disputed ADC leadership and INEC’s recognition of it. He sought declarations that INEC was duty-bound to ensure the lawful constitution of the ADC’s governing bodies; that it could not validate the 99th NEC meeting; that its attendance at the meeting, report, recognition of the challenged NWC officers and validation of their assumption of leadership were unlawful and void; and that it could not deal with, monitor or enable unelected persons to function as executive officers. He further sought orders nullifying the challenged officers’ acts from 29th July 2025, setting aside the meeting’s decisions and resolutions constituting their NWC membership, and recognising him as the only elected NWC member with a subsisting four-year tenure and entitlement to supervise ADC affairs. He also sought perpetual injunctions restraining INEC from recognising those persons and restraining the 2nd and 3rdDefendants, together with those they represented, from acting as ADC officers or members of its governing bodies.

– The Plaintiff filed motions ex parte and on notice seeking interim and interlocutory
injunctions.

– The suit was assigned to Hon. Justice Emeka Nwite for hearing.

4th September 2025–12th March 2026: Interlocutory appeal

– On 4th September 2025, the trial Court declined to determine the interim application without notifying the other parties. It held: “I am of the view and I so hold that the interest of justice will be met by putting the other party on notice to show cause why the application should not be granted.”

– On 18th September 2025, the 2nd Defendant, despite the plethora of cases decided by the Appellate Courts to desist from pursuing interlocutory appeals aimed at derailing or stalling the smooth flow of the main suit and indeed the course of justice, filed a notice of appeal challenging the above-quoted decision which was entirely made for his benefit.

– On 27th January 2026, before the entry of the appeal before the lower Court, the Plaintiff filed a motion on notice seeking to amend his originating summons and thereby deeming the amended originating summons as having been properly filed and served.

– On the 6th day of February 2026, 6 months after filing of the notice of appeal, the 2nd Defendant transmitted its record of appeal solely because the Plaintiff filed a motion to amend. The 2nd Defendant circumvented the consideration and determination of the pending motions, including the motion to amend, and indeed the suit.

– On 12th March 2026, the Court of Appeal dismissed the interlocutory appeal no.:
CA/ABJ/CV/145/2026. The lower Court, guided by the doctrine of necessity, made preservative orders to ensure that the main suit, which is still pending before the trial Court is not rendered nugatory and determined timeously. Thus:
“Finally, it is necessary to make preservatory orders to ensure that the subject matter of the dispute pending before the trial court is not prejudiced, as Courts have inherent powers to control and regulate proceedings to ensure justice…
Accordingly, to protect the integrity of the proceedings and the eventual determination of the substantive suit pending before the Federal High Court in Suit No. FCT /ABJ/CS/1819/2025,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:

-That Suit No. FCT/ABJ/CS/1819/2025, be and is hereby granted accelerated hearing in view of the Electoral Time Table released by the 4th Respondent.
– That the parties are hereby directed to maintain the status quo ante bellum and shall refrain from taking any step or doing any act capable of foisting a fait accompli on the court or otherwise rendering nugatory the proceedings before the trial court.
– Costs of N2,000,000.00 (Two Million Naira) are awarded in favour of the 1st Respondent.”

16th March–30th April 2026: Appeal to Supreme Court

– On 16th March 2026, the 2nd Defendant pursued a further appeal to the Supreme Court. Persisting in its actions that prevent a meaningful resolution of the pending motions and the main suit before the trial Court.

– On 30th April 2026, in SC/CV/180/2026, Senator David Mark v. Hon. Nafiu Bala Gombe & 4 ors., the Supreme Court affirmed the direction to return to the trial Court thus: “…the order by the court below for parties to return to the trial Court for determination of all pending processes in the 1st Respondent’s suit before it, is hereby affirmed.”

8th May 2026 – 5th November 2026: Return to trial

– On 8th May 2026, the trial Court Coram: Hon Justice Emeka Nwite reconvened and the Defendants raised concerns that the Certified True Copy of the Supreme Court had yet to be obtained, thereby applying that the matter be adjourned sine die. Upon their application, the Court adjourned sine die pending receipt of the certified judgment.

– On 19th May 2026, the Honourable Chief Judge in the exercise of his administrative powers and owing to the intervening event of the recommendation of Hon. Justice Emeka Nwite by the National Judicial Council for appointment to the Court of Appeal, which could render him functus officio, reassigned the suit to Hon. Justice
Peter O. Lifu for accelerated hearing.

– Prior to Hon. Justice Peter O. Lifu’s first sitting, the Defendants filed a barrage of about 23 applications, including motions for recusal, stay of proceedings, joinder, interrogatories, discovery, case-stated e.t.c. The Defendants sought to simply frustrate the hearing of the main suit.

– On 30 June 2026, the Court, despite attempts by the Defendants to occasion an adjournment proceeded to hear the 23 pending applications. All five defendants moved their motions, and the Plaintiff adopted his responses. Rulings were scheduled for 7th July 2026.

– On 7th July 2026, rulings were delivered dismissing the applications. In connection with the 2nd Defendant’s motions of 3rd and 8th June, the Court requested submissions on interrogatories and discovery in proceedings commenced by originating summons, the application of case-stated principles to the reliefs, and any unsettled or recondite legal issues warranting those principles. Only the Plaintiff and the 2nd Defendant were directed to file addresses of no more than two pages each within 48 hours.

– On 24th July 2026, rulings were delivered dismissing the motions for interrogatories, discovery and case-stated and the matter was adjourned for hearing.

– On 28 September 2026, the Plaintiff was ready to proceed with the hearing, but the defendants sought strenuously for an adjournment sine die, citing in particular a motion filed at the Court of Appeal for Stay of proceedings Application. The Plaintiff opposed an indefinite adjournment, arguing that no notice of appeal supported a valid stay and that further delay would undermine the Supreme Court’s direction for accelerated hearing. The Court scheduled 5th October 2026 for ruling on the sine-die request and/or substantive hearing.

– On 5th October 2026, the Court dismissed the application for an adjournment sine die and proceeded to hear the substantive suits.

5th November 2026: Judgment and eventual outcome

The Court granted the reliefs sought by the Plaintiff. Particularly holding that:

– INEC must not recognise the ADC’s 99th NEC meeting for Electoral Act non-compliance;
– INEC must recognise Nafiu Bala as the ADC’s only recognised NEC member.
– Senator David Mark (2nd Defendant) and Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola (3rd Defendant) have no right to continue presenting themselves as ADC members.
— The meetings, decisions and resolutions reached by the NWC under their control have been set aside.

Share this:

Discover more from Premium Times Nigeria

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Type your email…

Subscribe

WATCH: Shettima, Oshiomhole dance to ‘Buga’ at Tinubu rally (VIDEO)

Press Release

More News

Uba Sani receives human capital development champion award

NCDMB highlights Nigeria’s investment-friendly reforms at ADIPEC strategic leadership roundtable

FG, Enugu align on agro-industrialisation, market access to boost food security

Gov Abiodun declares Ogun ready for state police

Governor Lawal distributes 300 vehicles, 2,000 bikes to Zamfara groups, individuals

Olam Agri breaks ground on new Integrated Feed Mill in Delta State, deepening investment in Nigeria’s agric sector