By Luminous Jannamike
ABUJA – The leadership crisis rocking the African Democratic Congress (ADC) took a decisive turn when Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court, Abuja, invalidated the emergence of Senator David Mark and other executives who assumed control of the party in July 2025.
But the judgment of November 5, 2026, was not simply about competing claims to party leadership. It hinged on a fundamental legal question: could the party’s National Executive Committee (NEC) use its constitutional powers to replace an existing elected leadership structure without complying with the democratic procedures prescribed by law?
In the Certified True Copy (CTC) of the judgment obtained by Saturday Vanguard, Justice Lifu said he identified critical weaknesses in the defendants’ case, including the disputed resignation letter on which they relied, the limits of NEC’s administrative powers and the absence of satisfactory evidence that the new executives emerged through a democratic election.
The resignation letter
One of the Mark-led camp’s principal arguments was that Nafiu Bala Gombe had voluntarily resigned as Deputy National Chairman on May 17, 2025, before the NEC meeting that produced the new leadership.
The letter, tendered as Exhibit ADC 1, was intended to establish that Gombe had relinquished his position and consequently lacked the legal standing to challenge the subsequent leadership transition.
Justice Lifu, however,
was unconvinced
Rather than accept the document simply because it was certified, the judge examined its signature against Gombe’s signatures on other documents executed before a Commissioner for Oaths.
He explained that certification established the status of a document as a true copy but did not, in itself, establish the authenticity of a disputed signature.
After comparing the documents, he said that he found material differences in their structure, style, formation and general manner of execution.
“The signatures do not appear to be one and the same,” Justice Lifu observed.
He consequently described the purported resignation letter as fictitious or fabricated and rejected it as reliable evidence that Gombe had voluntarily vacated his office.
The finding removed a central pillar of the defendants’ argument that Gombe had ceased to be an officer of the party before the July 2025 transition.
Importantly, this was a finding made in determining the civil dispute, not a criminal conviction for forgery.
NEC’s powers could
not override the law
The second major issue concerned the extent of NEC’s authority under Article 19(14) of the ADC constitution.
The defendants maintained that the provision empowered NEC to dissolve the existing National Working Committee (NWC), make administrative arrangements and install the new executives.
Justice Lifu acknowledged that political parties enjoy autonomy in managing their internal affairs
However, he held that such autonomy must operate within the limits of the Constitution and applicable electoral legislation.
He relied on Section 223(1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution, which requires political parties to provide for periodic democratic elections of their principal officers and executive committees.
He also considered Sections 82(1) and 82(3) of the Electoral Act 2022, alongside the relevant provisions of the Regulations and Guidelines for Political Parties, 2022.
His reasoning was that although NEC could exercise administrative powers under the party constitution, those powers could not be interpreted to dispense with mandatory democratic procedures.
In effect, the authority to administer a political party was not an unrestricted licence to appoint its national executives in place of a legally required election.
Emergence if new Excos
The decisive weakness in the defendants’ case, according to the judge, was the absence of satisfactory evidence that the new executives emerged through a democratic electoral process.
The defendants relied on documents showing that INEC had received notice of the NEC meeting, monitored its proceedings and subsequently recognised the resulting leadership.
But Justice Lifu drew a clear distinction between notifying INEC and conducting a democratic election.
He held that the Commission’s monitoring of the meeting did not establish that party members or duly elected delegates were given the opportunity to participate and vote for candidates of their choice.
The judge explained that notice to INEC and compliance with democratic election requirements were separate legal obligations. Consequently, neither the Commission’s attendance nor its subsequent recognition could validate a process that had not been shown to comply with the law.
The court therefore found no satisfactory evidence that the emergence of Mark and the other executives was preceded by, or resulted from, a democratic election as required by Section 82(3) of the Electoral Act.
This was central to the outcome: the defendants could not establish the legality of their emergence merely by demonstrating that INEC had been notified of, and monitored, the NEC meeting.
Internal-party-affairs argument
The defendants also challenged the court’s jurisdiction, arguing that the dispute concerned the internal affairs of a political party and was therefore unsuitable for judicial intervention.
Justice Lifu rejected that position
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Peoples Democratic Party v. Sule Lamido & Ors., he reasoned that although courts should ordinarily avoid interfering in internal political preferences, they cannot stand aside when a party’s actions are alleged to violate express constitutional or statutory provisions.
He also rejected the argument that Gombe had to exhaust the party’s internal dispute-resolution mechanisms before approaching the court.
The judge held that the objection was insufficient in the circumstances because the dispute raised questions of compliance with constitutional and statutory obligations.
The court was therefore entitled to determine whether the leadership transition complied with the law.
What the judge
finally ordered
Having resolved the substantive issues in Gombe’s favour, Justice Lifu invalidated the emergence of Mark and the other disputed executives, nullified the resolutions of the ADC’s 99th NEC meeting of July 29, 2025, and restrained the affected executives from presenting themselves as officers of the party.
He also declared Gombe the only elected NWC member whose four-year tenure remained in force and who was legally entitled to supervise the party’s affairs.
However, the judge expressly distinguished this entitlement from automatic succession to the office of National Chairman.
That distinction is important. The judgment did not automatically install Gombe as National Chairman; rather, it affirmed his continuing status as the elected NWC member whose tenure remained valid and recognised his legal entitlement to supervise the party’s affairs.
Ultimately, Gombe succeeded because the court found that his purported resignation had not been established, NEC’s administrative powers could not override constitutional and statutory requirements, and the Mark-led executives had failed to demonstrate that their emergence followed the legally prescribed democratic process.
The central message of Justice Lifu’s decision was that a political party cannot use its internal constitution to circumvent the Constitution of the country.
The post Sacking of Atiku: What Justice Lifu based his judgement on appeared first on Vanguard News.