Federal High Court nullifies ADC leadership and Atiku Abubakar’s 2027 presidential candidacy

On 5 November 2026, the Federal High Court in Abuja issued a significant ruling that voided the leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) held by former Senate President David Mark. This decision also rendered void the internal party actions taken during Mark's period in charge, specifically the presidential primary that selected former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar as the ADC nominee for the 2027 general elections.

Presiding over the matter, Justice Peter Lifu determined that Mark's assumption of the ADC chairmanship violated the party's constitution, the Electoral Act, and the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria. Additionally, the court annulled the selection of former Minister of Interior Rauf Aregbesola as National Secretary, along with the nominations of other ADC contenders for the forthcoming elections.

Background

The dispute originated from a factional split within the ADC. Nafiu Bala, the factional National Chairman from Gombe, filed suit (Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025) challenging the legitimacy of Mark’s leadership and the processes that led to Atiku’s candidacy. The court’s decision confirmed that the internal procedures used by Mark’s faction contravened statutory and constitutional provisions governing political parties.

The ADC, a smaller opposition party, had positioned Atiku Abubakar – a former Vice‑President who previously contested the 2023 presidential election under a different platform – as its standard‑bearer for 2027. The party also named Rauf Aregbesola, a former Minister of Interior, as National Secretary, and submitted a slate of candidates for legislative and gubernatorial contests.

Why it matters

The judgment has immediate implications for the ADC’s participation in the 2027 electoral cycle. By voiding the party’s leadership and candidate selections, the ruling leaves the ADC without a recognised presidential candidate and without a legally recognised national executive. This creates uncertainty for the party’s supporters and could affect the broader opposition landscape, as the ADC had been viewed as a potential vehicle for consolidating anti‑incumbent votes.

Factional chair Nafiu Bala praised the court’s handling of the case, describing the judgment as independent, impartial and intellectually rigorous. He emphasized that this verdict strengthens the requirement for political parties to function in accordance with their constitutions and the Electoral Act, while highlighting the judiciary's duty to maintain constitutional supremacy.

Opposition presidential candidate Peter Obi, representing the Nigeria Democratic Congress, expressed concern that the timing of the judgment – three months before the scheduled 2027 general elections – could generate instability and limit opposition parties’ ability to campaign effectively. Obi acknowledged the court’s authority but warned that unresolved party disputes so close to the election could undermine voter choice and democratic processes.

What happens next

The court’s order requires the ADC to re‑constitute its national leadership and to conduct a fresh, constitutionally compliant primary to nominate a presidential candidate for 2027. No specific timetable for these actions was provided in the judgment, but the decision implies that the party must act promptly to meet the electoral commission’s filing deadlines.

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is expected to receive updated submissions from the ADC once the party resolves its internal leadership dispute. Until then, the ADC’s participation in the presidential race remains suspended, and the party’s broader slate of candidates for legislative and gubernatorial elections may also be subject to review.

Stakeholders, including other opposition parties and civil society groups, are likely to monitor how the ADC restructures and whether further legal challenges arise. The judgment also sets a precedent for how Nigerian courts may intervene in internal party matters, reinforcing the legal framework that governs political party autonomy and internal democracy.