ADC factional chair Bala hails court ruling nullifying Atiku’s candidacy

The Federal High Court in Abuja ruled that the ADC leadership led by former Senate President David Mark was not lawfully constituted. Because the court nullified that leadership, it also invalidated decisions taken under it. The ruling directly affected the party’s presidential primary and its choice of Atiku Abubakar for the 2027 general elections.

Justice Peter Lifu also nullified the emergence of Rauf Aregbesola as National Secretary, other national officer appointments and candidate nominations submitted by the ADC for 2027. The court held that Mark’s leadership violated the ADC constitution, the Electoral Act and the 1999 Constitution. It ordered INEC not to recognise or act on decisions from the party’s 99th National Executive Committee meeting on July 27, 2025.

The article does not state what replacement process will follow. It establishes that the court rejected the legal basis for the affected leadership decisions and nominations.

Nafiu Bala Gombe was a former Deputy National Chairman of the ADC for the North-East. He became the claimant in the leadership dispute after Ralph Nwosu resigned as the party’s National Chairman. Bala said his position gave him a constitutional entitlement to assume the party’s leadership after that resignation.

Instead, David Mark and other members of a caretaker committee emerged as interim leaders. Bala challenged Mark’s emergence as National Chairman and Rauf Aregbesola’s emergence as National Secretary. He argued that these changes did not follow the ADC constitution or relevant provisions of the Electoral Act. The suit named the ADC, INEC, Mark, Aregbesola and Nwosu as defendants.

The Federal High Court ultimately ruled in Bala’s favour on the substantive issues. He later praised the court for deciding the politically sensitive case through constitutional and statutory rules rather than political considerations.

The ruling invalidated a broad chain of ADC political activity. It nullified the leadership led by David Mark, the party’s presidential primary that produced Atiku Abubakar, the emergence of Rauf Aregbesola as National Secretary and appointments of other national officers. It also nullified candidate nominations presented by the ADC for the 2027 elections.

The key mechanism was the court’s finding that Mark’s leadership violated the ADC constitution, relevant Electoral Act provisions and the 1999 Constitution. Since the court rejected the process that installed the leadership, it also invalidated decisions taken by that leadership. The court separately ordered INEC not to recognise or act on decisions from the 99th National Executive Committee meeting held on July 27, 2025.

The article gives no numerical percentage or exact count of invalidated activities. It describes the effect as covering the leadership, primary, national officers and 2027 nominations.

The court concluded that Mark’s emergence violated the ADC constitution, relevant provisions of the Electoral Act and the 1999 Constitution. The article links that conclusion to the procedure used after Ralph Nwosu resigned. Mark and other caretaker committee members assumed control, while Bala argued that the party’s succession rules entitled him to lead.

The central mechanism was compliance with established procedures. Bala argued that the ADC constitution prescribed who should succeed the National Chairman and how leadership should emerge. The court accepted that leadership decisions must be tested against the party constitution and applicable law. It therefore rejected political expediency as a substitute for those requirements.

The ruling reflects a wider principle highlighted by Bala: political parties are not above their own constitutions. Where a party ignores its rules, the court may intervene to protect the rule of law and prevent what Bala described as anarchy. The article does not list every specific breach.

When the court nullified the leadership process, it also invalidated decisions made through that process. That included the ADC presidential primary that produced Atiku Abubakar as the party’s candidate for the 2027 general elections. The ruling also covered the nominations of other candidates presented by the ADC for those elections.

The court’s mechanism was not a separate finding about each candidate. It first found that the Mark-led leadership had emerged in violation of the ADC constitution, the Electoral Act and the 1999 Constitution. It then invalidated decisions taken by that leadership, including the primary and candidate nominations. INEC was ordered not to recognise or act on decisions from the July 27, 2025 NEC meeting.

The article does not state whether a new primary will be held, whether nominations will be replaced or what timetable applies. It establishes only that the affected primary result and nominations were nullified by the judgment.

Party autonomy means a political party has space to manage its internal affairs under its constitution. Internal democracy means leadership and other decisions follow the party’s recognised rules and procedures. These ideas matter because parties choose leaders and candidates through processes that can affect public elections and democratic trust.

The ADC dispute provides a concrete example. After Ralph Nwosu resigned, David Mark and other caretaker committee members assumed control. Nafiu Bala Gombe argued that the ADC constitution entitled him to succeed Nwosu as Deputy National Chairman for the North-East. The court examined that succession process against the ADC constitution, the Electoral Act and the 1999 Constitution.

Bala said courts are duty-bound to intervene when parties fail to follow their own rules. The judgment therefore treated party autonomy as lawful self-government, not freedom to ignore governing documents. The article presents intervention as a way to safeguard democracy, uphold the rule of law and prevent anarchy.

The article presents the Electoral Act as a binding legal framework for political parties and elections. It says parties must operate within their constitutions and the Act, rather than treating the Act as optional guidance. The law therefore matters when parties choose leaders, conduct primaries and nominate candidates.

In the ADC case, Justice Peter Lifu held that the Mark-led leadership violated relevant provisions of the Electoral Act, alongside the ADC constitution and the 1999 Constitution. The court then ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission not to recognise or act on decisions from the party’s 99th National Executive Committee meeting of July 27, 2025. The ruling also invalidated related appointments, the presidential primary and nominations.

Thus, INEC is the public electoral body affected by the court’s order. The article describes its regulatory responsibilities but does not detail every power or procedure under the Electoral Act. It shows that court findings can control which party decisions INEC may recognise.