INEC: Why we’re yet to act on judgement nullifying Atiku’s candidacy

The Federal High Court in Abuja ruled that the processes leading to Atiku Abubakar’s emergence as the ADC presidential candidate were invalid. It also voided the emergence of David Mark, Rauf Aregbesola and others as national officers. The ruling matters because it challenges both the party’s leadership structure and its electoral nominations.

Justice Peter Lifu nullified actions taken by the David Mark leadership. That included nominations of all ADC candidates contesting the 2027 general elections. The judge agreed with Nafiu Bala Gombe, who argued that Mark, Aregbesola and others emerged through an unlawful process that breached the party constitution and Electoral Act.

Atiku rejected the judgement and said he would appeal. He continued campaigning in Birnin Kebbi, while Gombe called the ruling a victory for democracy. If it stands, the ADC’s leadership, presidential candidacy and other nominations could all face serious uncertainty before the election.

Legally, to nullify is to declare that a process or decision has no valid legal effect. In this case, the judge found that the process producing Atiku Abubakar as ADC presidential candidate was invalid. The same reasoning applied to David Mark, Rauf Aregbesola and others as national officers.

The practical mechanism was broader than removing individual officeholders. Justice Peter Lifu voided actions taken by the David Mark leadership because the leadership itself was judged illegal and unlawful. Those actions included nominating every ADC candidate contesting the 2027 general elections. The judgement therefore attacked the foundation and the decisions built upon it.

Nullification does not necessarily end the dispute immediately. Atiku said the ADC would challenge the decision at the Court of Appeal. The article also reports an earlier Federal High Court decision dismissing a challenge to the Mark-led leadership, creating competing legal positions and continuing uncertainty.

INEC’s election role is to organise and regulate the electoral process, including receiving party nominations and preparing the election framework. Its recognition of leaders and candidates is therefore tied to the records and submissions that political parties lawfully make. The article identifies INEC as a defendant but does not describe a specific action it took after the judgement.

The ruling creates a problem for INEC because Justice Peter Lifu voided the leadership that made ADC nominations and nullified all those nominations. Atiku and the ADC say they will appeal, while another Federal High Court had earlier dismissed a challenge to the same leadership. INEC must therefore deal with a disputed legal and party record.

The immediate article-based position is uncertain. The judgement could affect the names and officers INEC treats as valid, but an appeal may change the legal position. This explanation of INEC’s general role uses established election knowledge beyond the article, which gives no detailed procedure for handling the dispute.

The article does not provide a numerical count of ADC candidates or party officials affected. It says Justice Peter Lifu nullified the nominations of all ADC candidates contesting the 2027 general elections. That means the potential reach extends across the party’s candidate list, not only to Atiku Abubakar.

The judgement also voided the emergence of David Mark, Rauf Aregbesola and others as national officers. The article does not identify every affected official or state how many national officers were involved. It therefore supports a broad description, but not a precise figure. The court’s reasoning was that these officers emerged through an illegal and unlawful leadership process.

The uncertainty is especially important because the ADC says it already has candidates across the country and plans to continue its campaign. Atiku intends to appeal, and the case has an earlier conflicting Federal High Court ruling. Until the legal dispute develops, the exact number affected cannot be stated from the article.

If the judgement remains in force, Atiku Abubakar’s emergence as the ADC presidential candidate would remain nullified. The party’s national leadership would also be invalidated, along with actions taken by that leadership. This could prevent the ADC from relying on its current presidential and other candidate nominations for the 2027 elections.

The key mechanism is the court’s finding that Mark, Aregbesola and others emerged through an unlawful process. Because the leadership was treated as illegal, Justice Peter Lifu also voided its nominations of all ADC candidates. The judgement therefore links the party’s internal leadership dispute directly to its ability to field candidates.

The article does not state the final administrative outcome or say that the ADC is permanently excluded. Atiku said the party would appeal at the Court of Appeal, while Gombe said campaigning would continue. The next legal steps could determine whether the ruling stands, changes or is overturned before the election.

INEC may wait because the judgement is being challenged and does not appear to be the only court decision concerning the ADC leadership. Atiku said Justice Musa Liman had earlier dismissed a challenge to the David Mark-led leadership. That creates uncertainty about which legal position should guide election administration.

The mechanism is judicial review through an appeal. Atiku described the new case as an attempt to reopen the same dispute and said the ADC would go to the Court of Appeal. Acting immediately on the latest judgement could create further disruption if an appellate court later suspends, changes or overturns it. The article does not state exactly what INEC will do.

This matters because the judgement also voided all ADC nominations for the 2027 elections. Gombe said the party already had candidates across the country and would continue campaigning. Waiting for clearer legal direction could help determine which leaders, candidates and party submissions remain valid.

Rules for conventions and nominations matter because they determine who has authority to lead a political party and choose its candidates. A party constitution sets its internal requirements, while the Electoral Act supplies legal standards for how leadership should emerge. Following both helps establish that decisions represent the party through a recognised process.

In this case, Nafiu Bala Gombe argued that David Mark, Rauf Aregbesola and others did not emerge through the required national-convention process. Justice Peter Lifu accepted that argument and described the leadership as illegal and unlawful. He then voided actions taken by that leadership, including the ADC’s nominations for the 2027 elections.

The ruling shows the practical consequences of defective procedures. It can affect not only officers but also candidates and campaign plans. Atiku called the judgement a calculated attempt to weaken the ADC, while Peter Obi warned that uncertainty could undermine opposition politics. The appeal will determine how the dispute proceeds.