More than one week after Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court sacked the Senator David Mark-led leadership of the African Democratic Congress, the soundness and timing of the judgment have continued to provoke controversy ahead its hearing by the Court of Appeal, Wale Igbintade writes
The opposition African Democratic Congress (ADC) has appealed the judgment of Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court, which sacked the National Executive Committee (NEC) of the party led by Senator David Mark. It also applied for a stay of execution of the verdict, which recognised the aggrieved former Deputy National Chairman of the ADC, Nafiu Bala Gombe, as the authentic leader of the ADC.
Justice Lifu stirred controversy in the already tense political atmosphere penultimate week when he declared the Mark-led executive illegal and invalidated all the actions it took on behalf of the party.
The judgment affected, among other things, the nomination of former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar as the ADC’s presidential candidate for the 2027 election. It also cast doubt on the candidacies of 1,503 aspirants, comprising 28 governorship candidates, 108 senatorial hopefuls, 352 House of Representatives’ candidates and 1,015 state Houses of Assembly candidates.
The judgment followed a suit filed by Gombe, who challenged the process through which the Mark-led caretaker committee assumed control of the party. Following the resignation of former National Chairman, Chief Ralph Nwosu, Gombe claimed he was entitled to take over the leadership. He asked the court to nullify the Mark-led leadership’s actions and restrain Mark and Rauf Aregbesola from parading themselves as National Chairman and National Secretary, respectively, arguing that their emergence violated the ADC constitution and the Electoral Act.
Also, Aregbesola appealed against Justice Lifu’s judgment on behalf of the National Working Committee (NWC) of the party. In his notice of appeal filed through his lawyer, Mohammed Sheriff (SAN), he asked the appellate court to set aside Justice Lifu’s judgment on the grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Among other things, the former Osun State governor asked the court to set aside the lower court’s decision to assume jurisdiction over claims concerning his emergence as national secretary and the validity of resolutions reached at the party’s 99th NEC meeting. He also asked the appellate court to overturn the declaration that Gombe’s four-year tenure remained subsisting and that he was entitled to oversee the affairs of the party.
Sheriff outlined five grounds of appeal, arguing that Lifu erred in law by holding that the challenge to INEC’s statutory oversight empowered the lower court to determine competing claims to the ADC leadership arising from the 99th NEC meeting.
Last week, the ADC Presidential Campaign Council (ADC-PCC) alleged “machinations” behind the transfer of the case from Justice Emeka Nwite, who had begun hearing it, to Justice Lifu.
The council said that after the Supreme Court remitted the case to the lower court for determination of the substantive issues, it petitioned the Chief Judge, Justice John Tsoho, against assigning it to Lifu, citing alleged bias in previous cases involving the party. The request was ignored.
While the party’s National Welfare Secretary, Nkemakolam Ukandu, filed a motion on June 5, demanding that Justice Lifu recused himself from the case and alleging bias, Aregbesola, also petitioned for Lifu’s withdrawal, citing a lack of confidence in the judge. Lifu, however, declined to recuse himself and ordered an accelerated hearing.
Instead, he decided to honour the request by the plaintiff, Gombe, who requested that the case file be withdrawn from Justice Nwite and transferred over Justice Lifu for adjudication.
A correspondence obtained by THISDAY showed that Gombe’s request was dated April 4, 2026.
Besides, before his judgment, two other Federal High Courts had upheld the Mark-led leadership. In March, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court in Abuja dismissed a suit by the party’s 2023 presidential candidate, Dumebi Kachikwu, and four others challenging the Mark’s leadership. She held that the issues concerned the party’s internal leadership and membership, which were non-justiciable and outside the court’s jurisdiction.
Also in July, another Federal High Court in Abuja, presided over by Justice Musa Liman, dismissed a suit filed by a member of the House of Representatives, Leke Abejide, challenging the same Mark-led leadership.
Justice Liman held that the party’s new leadership emerged in line with its constitution and the law.
The judge awarded N2million in costs to each of the defendants, to be paid by Abejide. He also awarded a N10 million fine against Abejide’s lawyer.
Many analysts are wondering why Justice Lifu did not abide by the two judgments of the same court of coordinate jurisdiction.
A few legal analysts have also argued that even if Justice Lifu needed to sack Mark-led leadership, the verdict should not have affected Atiku and other candidates of the party running for various offices in 2027.
They stressed that doing so shows that members of ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and their collaborators who do not want the former vice president on the ballot at all cost, were behind the judgment
Last week, fresh documentary evidence released by the Mark-led leadership raised questions about Gombe’s claim to the party’s national chairmanship. The documents, comprising an alleged resignation letter signed by Gombe, attendance registers of key party meetings, correspondence with INEC, NEC minutes and court processes, seek to establish that the former Deputy National Chairman participated in the arrangements that facilitated the coalition’s entry into the party before subsequently challenging the leadership transition.
At the centre of the documentary evidence is a letter dated May 17, 2025, in which Gombe allegedly resigned from the party’s NWC, effective May 26, 2025. The party said the then Deputy National Secretary, who reportedly witnessed him sign the letter, also swore to its authenticity in a deposition, according to the documents. The ADC subsequently notified INEC of Gombe’s resignation through a letter dated July 21, 2025. The commission reportedly received the correspondence on August 12 and certified the relevant record on October 10, 2025.
It, therefore, questioned why Gombe instituted his suit challenging the leadership transition on September 2, 2025, more than three months after the stated effective date of his resignation. This development, it said, raised questions about the circumstances surrounding his departure from the NWC and the constitutional basis of his subsequent claim to the party’s leadership.
The documents also challenged Gombe’s claim that he was excluded from negotiations and arrangements that culminated in the emergence of the Mark-led leadership, and that the attendance sheet of the party’s March 27, 2025 meeting reportedly bore his signature.
It added that at the meeting, the Nwosu-led NWC allegedly waived the party’s two-year membership requirement to accommodate members of the coalition. Similarly, the attendance register of the May 15, 2025 NEC meeting at Chelsea Hotel, Abuja, reportedly contains his name.
Furthermore, it stated that at the meeting, the decision for existing party executives to resign to accommodate the coalition leadership was communicated. The records indicated that the then National Chairman, Ralph Nwosu, and members of his NWC issued written 30-day resignation notices between May 17 and 18, 2025, in accordance with Article 17(3) of the party’s constitution.
Of particular significance is a Facebook post attributed to Gombe on July 3, 2025, in which he publicly welcomed Mark and Aregbesola into the party’s leadership arrangement. In the post, Gombe reportedly acknowledged that the decision to accommodate the coalition was not taken lightly.
The documents also showed that he attended the July 11 meeting at Mark’s residence and the July 29 NEC meeting, where his name appeared as number 53 on the attendance register. The Mark-led faction relied on these records to challenge claims that Gombe was unaware of, or excluded from, the arrangements that facilitated the leadership transition.
Beyond the judgement, further indications that there could be efforts to frustrate the party from participating in the 2027 election were the deliberate refusal to release the certified true copy (CTC) of the judgment to the party.
Many believe that if a judgment was delivered in the open court on Thursday, November 5, nothing should have prevented the court from releasing the CTC the same day or next day.
While some officials of the party feel it is a ploy to delay and prevent the Court of Appeal from quickly dispensing with the appeal, other say it is to enable outsiders to thinker with the judgment.
It was not until last Wednesday, November 11, when members of the party staged a protest at the Federal High Court, demanding the release of the CTC that it was released.
The protesters, who called on the National Judicial Council to intervene, accused Justice Lifu of deliberately withholding the CTC of the judgment, thereby frustrating their efforts to challenge the decision at the Court of Appeal.
Speaking during the protest, a former Acting Chairman of the ADC in the Federal Capital Territory, Yusuf Shehu Tijani, described the judgment as a “sham” and urged the judge to release its certified copy. He said the protest was intended to draw the attention of the NJC to the alleged delay, and compel the judge to release the document.
“Our reason for coming here today is what Justice Lifu is doing. He is holding on to the sham judgment he said he passed. He should send the CTC, so that we can get it and appeal the judgment. Moreover, the Supreme Court already affirmed the leadership of Senator Mark as the National Chairman of the ADC. So why is the High Court going against that recognition saying he’s passing a judgment? Now the judgment you passed, give us the CTC so that we can appeal, he is refusing to do that. That is why we are here,” he said.
Whatever it takes, it is hoped that both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court will diligently review the evidence which Justice Lifu ignored, and give the case accelerated hearing to clear all doubts in the various quarters.