ADC: An Opposition At War With Itself

Governance | Security | Criminology | Public Policy | Strategic Communication
Tel: 08033141980 [email protected]

The African Democratic Congress (ADC) appears to have discovered a rather unusual way of preparing for the 2027 presidential election: fighting over who is qualified to lead the party before deciding how to lead Nigeria.

If this were not a serious political matter, it would make for excellent political comedy.

A coalition that attracted prominent politicians, former governors, legislators and a former Vice-President, with the ambition of becoming a formidable opposition platform, is now struggling with a question that should have been settled long before their political grand entrance. So, who actually has the authority to lead their party?

The ADC came together to challenge the incumbent government. Now, the party appears to be challenging itself. The irony is almost embarrassing.

The Federal High Court judgment delivered by Justice Peter Lifu in Abuja on November 5, 2026, has turned that question into a major crisis. The court nullified the David Mark-led leadership and decisions taken under its authority, including the processes that produced Atiku Abubakar as the ADC’s presidential candidate.

The party has since appealed the judgment and sought a stay of execution. It is entitled to pursue that legal option. But the bigger embarrassment cannot be wished away by filing an appeal.

Imagine a political party seeking the mandate to govern more than 200 million Nigerians, yet unable to establish an uncontested answer to the question of who is authorised to run its own affairs. What happens to the much-talked-about party structure, party discipline, party cohesion, maturity, focus and the big objective of presenting a credible team that Nigerians can believe is capable of leading them to greater fortunes?

Nigeria’s presidency is not a committee meeting where everyone arrives with a different interpretation of the party agenda.

When political heavyweights become constitutional lightweights, that is a great recipe for national disaster. The problem goes beyond a disagreement over personalities. It raises the more fundamental question of personal political influence being allowed to take precedence over the rules and procedures that should govern a political party and, nay, the nation itself.

The attraction of the ADC coalition looked obvious: the bringing together of influential opposition figures to create a common platform and present Nigerians with a credible alternative to the ruling APC. On paper, it sounded like a promising strategy. But somewhere between assembling the big names and organising the party, the fundamentals appear to have been overlooked. Behind the impressive collection of political heavyweights lies a troubling reality: big names, irreconcilable interests, discipline, team spirit and flawed, fragile foundations.

Political influence is not a substitute for constitutional imperatives and leadership authority. A former Senate President does not acquire an automatic right to lead a political party simply because of his stature. Neither does the presence of a former Vice-President make every decision taken by the party legally sound. It is presumed that every potential leader who pitches his or her tent with a political group has studied and accepted the rules of the union before making a public declaration of their standing. A party’s constitution is not an inconvenient document to be consulted only when political disagreements arise. It is the rulebook that must guide the organisation from the beginning. Respect for constitutional provisions cannot be selective. It is part of self-discipline and leadership quality to know the rules, play by the rules and ensure the enforcement of such rules for party cohesion and strength. The ADC leadership crisis is a case of ambition overriding institutional order. Unfortunately, some of its political actors appear to have treated the process of taking control as more important than establishing the legitimacy of that control.

At the centre of the ADC dispute is Nafiu Bala Gombe, a former Deputy National Chairman, who claimed that he was entitled to assume leadership following Ralph Nwosu’s resignation.

The ADC maintained that Bala had resigned from his position in May 2025. But questions have been raised about the documentation supporting that claim.

That is an awkward situation for a party hoping to present itself as a credible alternative to the ruling establishment. A leadership transition should not be a dark mystery requiring forensic investigation.

If a party cannot produce clear documentation showing how its leadership changed, how does it expect Nigerians to trust its capacity to manage more complicated national responsibilities confronting the Nigerian nation?

There is also an earlier judgment delivered by Justice Musa Liman on July 2, 2026, dismissing a separate challenge to the Mark-led leadership. The two cases involved different claims and legal questions. It would therefore be wrong to simply suggest that the later judgment overturned the earlier one. The legal issues will have to be tested through the appropriate appellate process.

The fact that the party’s leadership has become the subject of multiple court battles should itself worry political strategists. At present, the problem can be summed up in a few words: too many leaders, too little order.

Beyond the courtroom, the crisis exposes a deeper weakness in coalition politics. Bringing influential politicians together is one thing; reconciling their ambitions, interests and expectations under a common structure is quite another. A coalition built around the desire to displace an incumbent government must also demonstrate that its members can agree on leadership, strategy and the rules of engagement. Otherwise, the very differences that brought it together in opposition may eventually pull it apart. This is, in many ways, a self-inflicted crisis.