ADC crisis: Makinde warns FG against stifling opposition

The Federal High Court judgment removed legal recognition from the African Democratic Congress leadership led by David Mark. That decision affected more than party titles. It also challenged actions taken while the Mark-led group controlled the party. As a result, the ADC’s preparations for the 2027 general elections became uncertain.

The court invalidated the Mark-led National Working Committee and Rauf Aregbesola’s emergence as National Secretary. It also cancelled decisions by that leadership, including nominations for elective positions. The court directed INEC not to recognise or act on decisions from the ADC’s 99th National Executive Committee meeting held on July 27, 2025.

The ruling therefore created uncertainty around the party’s organisation, candidates, and presidential process. Makinde said Atiku’s ambition was under threat. Atiku said he would appeal, while Gombe’s faction welcomed the judgment and rejected the Mark-led group’s candidates.

When a court nullifies a political party’s leadership, it declares that leadership legally invalid in the dispute before it. The leaders may have exercised control, but their authority is no longer accepted for the purposes covered by the judgment. This matters because parties need recognised officers to make binding decisions and organise elections.

In the ADC case, the court nullified the National Working Committee led by Mark and Aregbesola’s emergence as National Secretary. It also invalidated decisions made by that leadership, including nominations for elective positions. The court specifically directed INEC not to recognise or act on decisions from the party’s 99th National Executive Committee meeting.

The practical effect is uncertainty over which party decisions remain usable for the 2027 process. The judgment does not end the dispute immediately, because Atiku vowed to challenge it at the Court of Appeal. Gombe’s faction, however, welcomed the ruling.

The judgment was broad because it addressed both who controlled the ADC and what that leadership had done. It nullified the National Working Committee led by former Senate President David Mark. It also invalidated Rauf Aregbesola’s emergence as the party’s National Secretary, removing another key appointment from legal certainty.

The court further invalidated decisions taken by the Mark-led leadership, including nominations of candidates for elective positions. It directed INEC not to recognise or act on decisions made at the ADC’s 99th National Executive Committee meeting on July 27, 2025. That instruction directly affected the party’s formal preparations for elections.

The process that produced Atiku Abubakar as the ADC presidential candidate was also placed under threat, according to Makinde’s reaction. The ruling therefore raised questions about the party’s leadership, officers, nominations, executive decisions, and presidential candidature. Atiku’s appeal means those issues remain contested.

Atiku Abubakar’s presidential bid depends on the party process that produced him as the ADC candidate. If that process is not recognised, his status as the party’s candidate could come under threat. Makinde specifically said the court action against the ADC leadership also endangered Atiku’s presidential ambition.

The court invalidated decisions made by the Mark-led leadership and directed INEC not to recognise or act on decisions from the party’s 99th National Executive Committee meeting. Because the article links Atiku’s emergence to the disputed process, the ruling creates uncertainty around his candidature and the party’s preparations.

Atiku has vowed to challenge the judgment at the Court of Appeal. He described the ruling as an attempt to weaken the opposition ahead of 2027. The Gombe faction takes the opposite position, saying the Mark-led leadership had no valid candidates for the forthcoming elections.

The main sides are the Mark-led ADC leadership and the faction associated with former Deputy National Chairman Nafiu Bala Gombe. Mark’s group included the caretaker committee members whose control of the party was challenged. Gombe brought the legal action that led to the Federal High Court judgment.

Gombe challenged the process through which Mark and other caretaker committee members assumed control of the party. The court then nullified the Mark-led National Working Committee, Aregbesola’s emergence as National Secretary, and decisions made by that leadership. This decision removed the legal basis Gombe disputed.

The factions now interpret the ruling differently. Gombe’s faction welcomed it and insisted that the Mark-led leadership had no valid candidates for the forthcoming elections. Atiku, whose candidature emerged through the disputed process, rejected the outcome and vowed to appeal. Makinde also warned that the ruling threatened the opposition.

The clearest legal option is an appeal. Atiku has already vowed to challenge the Federal High Court judgment at the Court of Appeal. That route allows the disputed leadership, party decisions, and presidential selection process to remain under legal review rather than being treated as finally settled.

INEC has a specific role under the judgment. The court directed the commission not to recognise or act on decisions taken at the ADC’s 99th National Executive Committee meeting on July 27, 2025. This concerns the party’s nominations and other election preparations. The Gombe faction can continue relying on its position that the Mark-led leadership had no valid candidates.

The political choice is for the competing sides to pursue a recognised process while the dispute continues. Makinde also urged the administration to protect judicial and electoral independence. The next implications depend on the appeal and how the party and INEC handle the disputed decisions.

An independent judiciary matters because courts must be able to review disputes without being controlled by political interests. An independent electoral commission matters because election rules, nominations, and voting must be administered by an institution trusted to act fairly. Viable opposition parties give voters meaningful alternatives to the governing party.

Makinde connected these principles to the ADC case. He said the Federal High Court ruling had nullified a major opposition party’s leadership and threatened Atiku’s candidature. He urged the administration not to destroy institutions, specifically naming the judiciary and INEC, which is responsible for conducting a free and fair election.

He also warned against shutting out opposition parties. His position was that a government should win “fair and square” in the field. If institutions remain independent, disputes can be tested through recognised procedures. If opposition parties are weakened, the 2027 contest could lose credible competition, according to the concern expressed in his appeal.