The legal challenge instituted by Nafiu Bala Gombe, the unresolved questions surrounding the ADC leadership transition and the eventual nullification of the Mark-led executive have exposed the consequences of allowing internal institutional disagreements to persist until they become major electoral liabilities
By Adekunle Alaye, PhD.
In politics, it is often easier to blame an external enemy for an internal failure than to confront the mistakes that created the crisis in the first place.
This appears to be one of the most convenient political responses to the unfolding leadership crisis within the African Democratic Congress (ADC), following the Federal High Court judgment of November 5, 2026, which nullified the leadership structure headed by former Senate President David Mark and invalidated the processes that produced the party’s candidates, including former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar’s presidential ticket.
Since the judgment, sections of the opposition have increasingly presented the development as another manifestation of the alleged determination of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) to weaken opposition parties and frustrate the emergence of a formidable political alternative ahead of the 2027 general elections.
While concerns about the independence of democratic institutions, the neutrality of the judiciary and the survival of opposition politics deserve serious consideration, there is an equally important question that must not be sacrificed on the altar of partisan sentiment: Did the APC create the ADC’s leadership crisis, or did the party’s own failure to resolve its internal constitutional and administrative contradictions provide the legal foundation for the present predicament?
This distinction is fundamental. It separates legitimate political criticism from convenient political excuses, and it distinguishes an alleged conspiracy against an opposition party from the consequences of its own institutional failures.
The judiciary cannot be expected to overlook procedural irregularities simply because the individuals affected are influential politicians or because their political ambitions are directed against the incumbent government.
Indeed, the most uncomfortable reality for Atiku and the coalition around him may be that the current legal predicament did not emerge overnight. It developed from a leadership arrangement whose political acceptability was apparently not matched by sufficient attention to the constitutional processes required to sustain it.
The emergence of the ADC as a preferred platform for opposition consolidation was initially celebrated as a strategic political development. Atiku Abubakar, David Mark, Rauf Aregbesola, Peter Obi, Rotimi Amaechi and other prominent political figures saw an opportunity to bring different political interests under one umbrella to challenge President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and the APC in 2027.
It was an ambitious political calculation, and understandably so. Nigeria’s opposition needed a platform capable of mobilising voters, consolidating political structures and presenting a credible alternative to the ruling party.
However, the adoption of an existing political party as a coalition vehicle came with responsibilities that should never have been treated as mere formalities.
A political coalition is not automatically a constitutional authority. The agreement of prominent politicians to work together does not, by itself, confer legal legitimacy on their preferred leadership structure. Neither does the political influence of former governors, senators, presidential candidates and other political heavyweights supersede the constitution of an existing political party.
This is where the ADC leadership crisis began to expose a fundamental contradiction.
The coalition appeared more interested in securing a politically convenient platform than in ensuring that every aspect of its leadership transition was legally incontestable.
The former ADC leadership under Ralph Nwosu, the emergence of David Mark’s interim leadership and the objections raised by Nafiu Bala Gombe presented a succession dispute that required careful constitutional management.
Instead, the disagreement was allowed to mature into a prolonged legal confrontation.
The lesson is straightforward: political consensus among powerful individuals cannot substitute for institutional legitimacy.
One of the most significant mistakes in the political interpretation of the ADC crisis is the tendency to treat Nafiu Bala Gombe as though he were merely an instrument in a larger APC political conspiracy.
Whether or not his political motivations are agreeable to the Mark-led faction, Bala was entitled to seek judicial intervention if he genuinely believed that the party’s constitutional provisions had been violated.
The fact that his legal action has produced consequences unfavourable to Atiku and other prominent opposition politicians does not automatically invalidate his grievances.
This is precisely why the rule of law must remain above political sentiments.
Bala’s challenge centred on the legitimacy of the process through which the Mark-led leadership emerged and whether the appropriate constitutional and legal procedures were followed.
The November 5 judgment by Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja subsequently ruled in his favour, nullifying the Mark-led leadership structure and the actions flowing from it, including the processes that produced the party’s candidates.
The critical question is not whether Bala is politically popular or whether his emergence would serve the broader opposition movement.
The question is whether the process challenged before the court complied with the law.
If the court found sufficient legal grounds to invalidate the leadership arrangement, the appropriate response should be a properly constituted appeal supported by compelling legal arguments, not an automatic declaration that the ruling must have been engineered by the APC.
Democracy cannot operate on the assumption that only politically convenient judicial decisions are legitimate.
Perhaps the most consequential dimension of this crisis is the political responsibility of Atiku Abubakar himself.
Atiku is not a political newcomer who can reasonably claim ignorance of the complexities of Nigeria’s party politics. He is a former Vice-President, a veteran presidential contender and one of the country’s most experienced political actors.
His experience should ordinarily have made him particularly conscious of the importance of establishing the legal and constitutional credibility of the platform through which he intended to pursue another presidential ambition.
It is therefore legitimate to ask: Did Atiku adequately investigate the legal standing of the ADC leadership structure before entrusting his 2027 presidential ambition to it?
Did the coalition establish beyond reasonable doubt that the leadership transition had complied with the ADC constitution, the Electoral Act and applicable electoral regulations?
Were all legitimate stakeholders adequately accommodated? Were the grievances of existing party officials resolved before the coalition proceeded with its political activities and electoral arrangements?
These are not questions intended to diminish Atiku’s political stature. They are questions of political responsibility.
A presidential aspirant seeking to govern a country of more than 200 million people must demonstrate an understanding of institutional discipline, constitutional compliance and democratic accountability.
It would be difficult to convince Nigerians that a political movement is sufficiently prepared to manage the complexities of national governance when its own leadership arrangements are unable to withstand internal legal scrutiny.
The unfolding ADC crisis offers Nigeria an important lesson about the relationship between political ambition, institutional responsibility and the rule of law
Atiku’s insistence that nothing will prevent him from appearing on the 2027 ballot may demonstrate political determination. However, determination alone cannot resolve a legal defect in the platform through which he intends to contest.
His ambition may be legitimate, but the vehicle carrying that ambition must also be legitimate.
The APC has become the principal target of accusations following the judgment, with the ADC and its allies suggesting that the ruling party is interested in weakening the opposition ahead of 2027.
Such suspicions cannot simply be dismissed because political interference in opposition affairs is a legitimate subject of democratic scrutiny.
Nevertheless, allegations require evidence.
The fact that a court judgment has weakened the political prospects of the opposition does not establish that the ruling party influenced the judge or engineered the outcome.
There is an important difference between benefiting politically from another party’s misfortune and deliberately causing that misfortune.
The APC may indeed benefit from an opposition divided by leadership disputes, competing ambitions and legal uncertainty. But political advantage is not proof of political orchestration.
More importantly, the ADC cannot reasonably expect Nigerians to ignore the underlying dispute simply because its consequences have become politically inconvenient.
If the party believes the judgment is legally defective, it has an established constitutional remedy: appeal.
Indeed, the Mark-led ADC has indicated its intention to challenge the judgment, and on November 7, the party’s leadership announced that it was proceeding with an appeal and seeking a stay of execution. Atiku has equally maintained that he intends to contest in 2027.
These are legitimate political and legal responses.
However, repeatedly invoking an APC conspiracy without establishing a credible evidential connection risks distracting attention from the more fundamental question of how the party arrived at this position.
The opposition must understand that accountability is not an exclusive responsibility of the ruling party.
A party aspiring to replace an incumbent government must also demonstrate the ability to govern its own affairs responsibly.
The Judiciary Is Not an Extension of Political Campaign Machinery
Another disturbing tendency in the reactions to the ADC judgment is the apparent expectation that the judiciary should interpret political disputes primarily through their implications for opposition politics.
This is a dangerous proposition.
The judiciary is neither an extension of the APC nor a political protection agency for Atiku, David Mark or any other opposition figure.
Its responsibility is to interpret the law, examine the evidence presented by the parties and determine whether the relevant constitutional and statutory requirements have been satisfied.
If the Mark-led leadership believes that the trial court misunderstood the law, its lawyers should demonstrate that through the appellate process.
Equally, if Nafiu Bala Gombe’s arguments were supported by the relevant constitutional provisions and evidence, he should not be condemned merely because the judgment has disrupted the ambitions of more influential political figures.
The judiciary must remain accountable to the Constitution and the law, not to the political expectations of individual parties.
There is also an important distinction between judicial intervention in party affairs and judicial interference in democratic choice.
Courts should not unnecessarily substitute themselves for political parties or voters. However, they cannot abdicate their responsibility where disputes concerning party leadership, constitutional compliance and candidate nominations are properly brought before them.
The electorate deserves political choices that emerge from lawful processes.
The Supreme Court’s Earlier Intervention and the Danger of Misreading Judicial Decisions
An important aspect of the ADC controversy is the earlier intervention of the Supreme Court in the leadership dispute.
The apex court had set aside the Court of Appeal’s earlier status quo ante bellum order and directed that the substantive dispute be determined expeditiously by the Federal High Court.
However, this should not be interpreted as a final judicial endorsement of the Mark-led leadership.
The distinction between a procedural decision and a substantive determination is crucial.
The Supreme Court’s intervention cleared the way for the substantive case to proceed. It did not finally determine the question of who was constitutionally entitled to lead the ADC.
Consequently, political actors who interpreted that earlier development as an unquestionable legal victory may have underestimated the significance of the unresolved substantive issues.
This is an important lesson for Nigerian politicians: an interim judicial advantage should never be confused with a final determination of legal rights.
The political consequences of that misunderstanding have now become painfully evident.
The Consequences for Atiku and the 2027 Presidential Contest
The immediate implications of the judgment extend beyond the leadership of the ADC.
By nullifying the Mark-led leadership and the processes through which its candidates emerged, the court has created significant uncertainty around the party’s electoral preparations.
Atiku’s presidential ticket is directly affected, as are the nominations of other candidates associated with the disputed leadership.
This places the former Vice-President in an uncomfortable political position.
His presidential ambition now faces a challenge that cannot be resolved through campaign declarations, political rallies or accusations against the ruling party.
It requires a successful legal challenge or another lawful political arrangement capable of satisfying the relevant constitutional and electoral requirements.
The danger is that while the opposition spends valuable political time fighting over who controls the party, the ruling APC continues to enjoy the advantage of an established governing structure.
The crisis could also discourage potential coalition partners, weaken confidence among supporters and create uncertainty among candidates who have invested their political resources in the ADC platform.
For a movement that was established to consolidate opposition strength, this is a particularly unfortunate contradiction.
A coalition designed to challenge the ruling party should not become a battlefield where its constituent interests are unable to agree on basic questions of institutional authority.
The Bigger Question: Can the Opposition Build a Credible Alternative Without Internal Democracy?
Nigeria desperately needs a credible opposition.
A healthy democracy cannot depend entirely on the performance of the ruling party. It requires alternative political movements capable of offering different policy directions, challenging government decisions and presenting convincing solutions to the country’s socioeconomic problems.
However, the existence of an opposition party is not, in itself, evidence of democratic strength.
The quality of its internal democratic culture matters.
If the ADC intends to become a serious national alternative, it must demonstrate that its leadership is determined through transparent procedures, that its constitution is respected and that internal disagreements are resolved through established democratic mechanisms.
It must also recognise that political prominence does not confer immunity from accountability.
The experiences of Nigerian political parties have repeatedly demonstrated that alliances built primarily around the ambition of defeating an incumbent government often struggle when confronted with questions of leadership, candidate selection, zoning, political concessions and control of party structures.
The ADC must not repeat this familiar mistake. The opposition’s responsibility is not merely to assemble influential personalities around a common presidential ambition. It is to build a credible political institution capable of surviving disagreements, leadership transitions and electoral competition.
Without such institutional foundations, even the most politically attractive coalition can collapse under the weight of its own contradictions.
Atiku Must Recognise That Political Experience Also Demands Institutional Responsibility. Atiku’s political experience should be an advantage in navigating this crisis, but experience also comes with greater responsibility.
He cannot reasonably separate himself entirely from the political arrangements that made the ADC his preferred platform.
Although the former Vice-President may not have personally initiated every aspect of the disputed leadership transition, his political participation in the coalition and his decision to pursue the party’s presidential ticket make the consequences of that arrangement a legitimate subject of public scrutiny.
There is a difference between being a victim of an alleged political conspiracy and becoming a casualty of insufficient political due diligence.
The former requires evidence of deliberate external interference. The latter demands an honest examination of internal decisions, institutional weaknesses and avoidable mistakes.
Atiku and his political associates must be prepared to confront both possibilities without allowing partisan loyalty to prevent an objective assessment.
If the appeal succeeds, the party will have an opportunity to restore confidence in its leadership structure through the judicial process.
If it fails, the coalition must accept the legal consequences and explore only lawful alternatives.
What it cannot afford is to continue treating every internal disagreement as an APC operation.
Such an approach would only deepen the crisis and further weaken public confidence in the opposition.
The Opposition Must Stop Confusing Political Adversity With Political Conspiracy
The unfolding ADC crisis offers Nigeria an important lesson about the relationship between political ambition, institutional responsibility and the rule of law.
The ruling APC should not be absolved of scrutiny where credible evidence of political interference exists. Neither should the judiciary be shielded from legitimate questions about the consistency and fairness of its decisions.
However, the opposition must equally be willing to examine its own failures.
The legal challenge instituted by Nafiu Bala Gombe, the unresolved questions surrounding the ADC leadership transition and the eventual nullification of the Mark-led executive have exposed the consequences of allowing internal institutional disagreements to persist until they become major electoral liabilities.
It is therefore intellectually insufficient to reduce the entire controversy to an APC conspiracy against Atiku.
The more fundamental issue is whether the ADC leadership took sufficient steps to ensure that its political arrangements were constitutionally defensible before building a presidential ambition around them.
Atiku must also recognise that presidential ambition requires more than political experience, national visibility and the support of influential allies. It requires a credible institutional platform whose legitimacy can withstand legal and constitutional scrutiny.
There is an important lesson here for the entire Nigerian opposition: You cannot credibly promise to defend the Constitution at the national level while treating constitutional compliance within your own political organisation as an inconvenience.
The APC may be Atiku’s political opponent, but it is not automatically responsible for every difficulty confronting his political journey.
God bless Nigeria!
Adekunle Alaye, PhD,
Senior Research Associate of Political Science and Visiting Scholar, Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany.
skalaye2005@yahoo.com
+4915201847389
•Opinions, positions or thoughts expressed here are personal and strictly those of the writer/author and do not represent the views of The Daily Crucible.
