FHC’s Lifu Overrules FHC’s Lima, Voids 1,503 ADC Candidates; Who Will INEC Obey?

Justice Peter Lifu’s ruling removed legal recognition from the David Mark-led executive of the African Democratic Congress. He held that Mark’s emergence as national chairman, and the emergence of other executives, violated the party’s constitution and guidelines. The decision therefore challenged the authority under which the party conducted its congresses and convention.

The ruling declared all actions and decisions taken by the Mark-led executive unconstitutional, unlawful, null, and void. That included the processes that produced Atiku Abubakar and other ADC candidates for state and federal offices. Nafiu Bala Gombe brought the case, arguing that he was qualified to lead after Ralph Nwosu resigned.

The immediate effect was major uncertainty before the 2027 elections. The article says 1,503 ADC candidacies were affected. It also created a conflict with Justice Musa S. Liman’s earlier judgment, which had upheld the Mark-led executive and directed INEC to recognize it.

The article identifies 1,503 ADC candidates whose positions were affected by Lifu’s ruling. They were contesting offices across Nigeria’s state and federal elections. The figure includes the party’s presidential candidate, although the detailed breakdown provided in the article covers four other categories.

The distribution was 28 governorship candidates, 108 senatorial candidates, 352 House of Representatives candidates, and 1,015 Houses of Assembly candidates. Together, those figures total 1,503. The numbers show that the ruling reached far beyond the party’s presidential ticket.

This matters because all those candidacies emerged through congresses and a convention conducted by the Mark-led national executive. Once Lifu voided that executive’s actions, the legal basis for the candidates’ selection became uncertain. The article says their fate was left in a quandary as Nigeria moved toward the 2027 elections.

INEC means the Independent National Electoral Commission. It is Nigeria’s electoral management body, responsible for administering federal and state elections. The article presents INEC as the institution that must decide which ADC leadership it will recognize after two conflicting Federal High Court rulings.

Recognition matters because a political party needs an officially accepted leadership to conduct formal dealings with the electoral commission. That leadership organizes party processes, communicates with INEC, and supports the submission of candidates. If its authority is rejected, actions taken under it, including congresses or conventions, may be challenged.

In this case, Justice Liman directed INEC to recognize the Mark-led executive. Justice Lifu later declared that same executive invalid and voided its actions. The article therefore asks which judgment INEC will obey. The answer could affect whether ADC’s candidates remain accepted for the 2027 elections.

Justice Musa S. Liman dismissed the earlier suit because he found that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction over the internal leadership dispute. He also ruled that the plaintiff lacked standing and had failed to exhaust the African Democratic Congress’s internal remedies. The judgment therefore treated the challenge as procedurally defective.

Liman’s case was brought by Hon. Leke Joseph Abejide against ADC and others. On July 2, 2026, he dismissed the suit in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1637/2025. He awarded costs against the plaintiff and directed INEC to recognize and engage with the Mark-led leadership.

That judgment became important because it affirmed Mark’s executive before Lifu issued a conflicting ruling four months later. Both judges were described as having equal and coordinate jurisdiction. The conflicting decisions left INEC facing uncertainty over which court’s position should guide its dealings with ADC.

If INEC follows Lifu’s ruling, the ADC candidates could face challenges to their nominations or continued recognition. Lifu declared the Mark-led executive’s actions null and void. That matters because the same executive conducted the party congresses and convention that produced the candidates.

Atiku Abubakar’s presidential candidacy is directly exposed, along with the tickets of 28 governorship, 108 senatorial, 352 House of Representatives, and 1,015 state assembly candidates. The article says the ruling affected 1,503 people in total. Their selections may therefore be treated as having been made through an invalid process.

The immediate reality is uncertainty, not a stated final removal of every candidate. The article asks which conflicting judgment INEC will obey. It also reports Atiku’s claim that the ruling was intended to weaken ADC and frustrate his candidacy, while the party’s candidates were left in a quandary before the 2027 elections.

In Nigeria, two Federal High Court judges have equal and coordinate authority. One judge does not normally sit as an appeal court over another judge’s decision. A later judgment may disagree, but it does not automatically erase the earlier ruling or create a final hierarchy between them.

The usual legal route is for an affected party to challenge the relevant decision through an appeal. A higher court, such as the Court of Appeal, can examine the competing reasoning and issue a decision that lower courts must follow. Parties may also ask the court handling the dispute to consider issues such as jurisdiction, prior proceedings, or conflicting orders.

Here, the article identifies the conflict between Liman’s July judgment and Lifu’s later ruling. It does not state how the conflict will ultimately be resolved. It does state that INEC must decide which judgment to comply with, leaving the candidates’ status uncertain pending further legal action or clarification.

A political party’s constitution functions as its internal rulebook. It can define how leaders emerge, how vacancies are filled, and how congresses or conventions must be conducted. Candidate-selection procedures matter for the same reason: they establish whether nominations were made through an authorized process.

In this dispute, Gombe argued that Mark’s emergence and the executive’s formation violated ADC’s constitution and guidelines. Lifu accepted that argument and held that the executives did not emerge through due process. He then voided actions and decisions taken by the Mark-led executive, including the processes connected to ADC’s candidates.

The case shows why internal rules can have electoral consequences. The party’s congresses and convention produced Atiku and other candidates, so invalidating the organizing executive threatened the foundation of those nominations. Liman reached a different result, treating the dispute as an internal matter outside the court’s jurisdiction. That conflict now affects ADC’s election preparations.