Two Nigerian lawyers, Inibehe Effiong and Bodunde Opeyemi, have offered detailed legal explanations of the ongoing leadership crisis within the African Democratic Congress (ADC), pointing to procedural decisions and binding court rulings as the root of the dispute.

Their interventions come amid growing public debate over the role of the electoral commission and speculation about possible political interference.

Mr Effiong, a public interest and human rights lawyer, criticised the legal approach taken by the faction led by former Senate President David Mark, describing it as procedurally questionable.
He said the Federal High Court did not issue any restraining order against the leadership, but instead directed that all parties be put on notice — a standard legal step requiring both sides to present their arguments.

According to him, the appropriate response would have been to contest the case at the trial court rather than file an interlocutory appeal.
“It became a motion on notice. They should have filed processes in opposition,” he said, adding that the decision to appeal at that stage was “unusual” and “untidy”.

He warned that pursuing further appeals could complicate the matter further instead of resolving it.

*Court ruling shapes situation*

Legal practitioner Mr Opeyemi traced the dispute to a leadership contest that followed a party meeting in July 2025, which produced a new executive.

The situation escalated when a party official challenged the process in court, asking the Federal High Court to stop both the new leadership and the electoral body from recognising the outcome.
While the court declined to grant an interim order, the case later reached the Court of Appeal.

In March 2026, the appellate court directed all parties to maintain the status quo ante bellum — meaning the situation must remain as it was before the case was filed.
Mr Opeyemi said this order is clear and binding.

“It requires a strict preservation of the state of affairs before the dispute,” he explained, adding that no party is allowed to take actions that could influence the outcome of the case.

Why the electoral body acted
The lawyers say this court order explains the position taken by the electoral commission, which has declined to recognise any faction of the party.

According to Mr Opeyemi, the commission is legally bound to comply with the directive and cannot take sides while the case is still before the court.
He said any attempt to recognise a leadership or engage with party activities under dispute could amount to a violation of a valid court order.

*Focus on internal legal process*

Both lawyers suggest that the situation is the result of internal disagreements and legal strategy within the party.
Their analysis indicates that the current impasse is being shaped by court processes rather than actions from outside the party.

The dispute is expected to remain unresolved until the Federal High Court delivers a final judgment on the substantive case.

By Yusuf Danjuma Yunusa

The All Progressives Congress (APC) has described the Independent National Electoral Commission’s (INEC) recent removal of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) National Working Committee (NWC) members from its portal as a problem entirely of the opposition party’s own making.

Speaking on News Central on Thursday, APC spokesperson Felix Morka rejected allegations that the ruling party was behind INEC’s decision to stop recognising David Mark as ADC national chairman and former governor Rauf Aregbesola as national secretary.

“We are only concerned about our level of preparation and the effort we are making. We’re concerned about ourselves. It is the opposition that is obsessed about what the APC does,” Morka said.

He added: “Even the most recent development that everyone is talking about—INEC’s decision to derecognise the David Mark executive—was utterly self-inflicted. The APC didn’t do that. We did not orchestrate the hijack of the ADC by that executive.”

INEC removed the Mark-led NWC from its portal on Wednesday, citing a March 12 ruling by the Court of Appeal. The commission also delisted the factional chairman, Nafiu Bala Gombe. INEC stated it would no longer recognise any factional activities until the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court resolves the party’s leadership dispute.

In response, the ADC, through its national publicity secretary Bolaji Abdullahi, accused the ruling party of hijacking its leadership and pressuring INEC to sack the Mark-led NWC. “The electoral body acted under pressure from a government panicked by the opposition momentum, despite its efforts to destroy all opposition parties and foist a one-party rule on Nigeria,” the ADC alleged.

Morka dismissed the accusation, arguing that INEC withdrew recognition from Mark and Aregbesola because they disregarded the ADC’s constitution and the rule of law.

“They did that, completely ignoring the rule of law and the party’s constitution on succession. When you parachute into a party and take over without following constitutional stipulations on leadership succession, this is the consequence,” he said.

“This was manufactured by the same people now complaining and pointing fingers at the APC. We are not concerned about all that.”

The leadership crisis in the ADC—a coalition of opposition politicians positioning to challenge President Bola Tinubu in the 2027 elections—began following the resignation of Ralph Nwosu as national chairman. David Mark was subsequently ratified as chairman, a move Gombe contested, arguing that he was entitled to the position under the party’s constitution.

Gombe then approached the Federal High Court in Abuja, challenging the legality of Mark’s leadership and seeking an order to stop the NWC members from parading themselves as party leaders.

Mark’s faction appealed to the Court of Appeal on December 18, 2025, arguing that the lower court lacked jurisdiction. However, the appellate court dismissed the appeal, allowing the case to proceed at the Federal High Court.

By Yusuf Danjuma Yunusa

Former President Goodluck Jonathan has called on the National Assembly to overhaul Nigeria’s electoral litigation process by establishing a specialised constitutional court to handle election disputes.

Speaking on Wednesday in Abuja at the 70th birthday and book launch of Senator Gbenga Daniel (APC, Ogun East), Mr. Jonathan argued that a dedicated court would reduce the strain on the political system by resolving election-related cases in a single phase.

He criticised the current three-tier system for governorship disputes—moving from a tribunal to the Court of Appeal and finally to the Supreme Court—as ineffective and unnecessarily prolonged.

Recalling a landmark case from 2011, Jonathan highlighted how technicalities have historically undermined electoral justice. “I remember a particular case where someone lost an election as a governor because the law then stipulated the use of red ink to tick voters’ names,” he said.

“In an entire senatorial district, they were not provided with red pens and used available black or green pens. As a result, those votes were cancelled. The Appeal Court upheld this, even though the lower tribunal felt that a tick is a tick.”

While acknowledging that the National Assembly later amended the law to allow governorship cases to reach the Supreme Court—specifically to prevent such injustices—Jonathan noted that the amendment failed to address the length of the litigation process.

The former president urged Nigeria to draw lessons from Francophone African countries, which employ specialised constitutional courts for political matters. He proposed that if the Supreme Court must remain the final arbiter for governorship elections, the lower tribunal stage should be eliminated entirely.

“I believe the ideal thing to do, which I was considering when I was in office, was to make sure that it’s only one tribunal that listens to any litigation relating to politics. This is done, especially in the Francophone countries in Africa. They have constitutional courts. Anything about elections, only the constitutional courts take decisions,” Jonathan explained.

He also challenged the judiciary to exercise firmness in its rulings, drawing an analogy to football. “Politics is like soccer, and the judges are the referees. If the referee looks the other way, players will break legs or score with their hands,” he added.