“Why Was Another Case Filed To Reopen The Same Dispute?” — Atiku Questions Conflicting ADC Judgments, Vows Appeal And Stay Of Execution

Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has vowed to challenge the Federal High Court judgment invalidating his nomination as the African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate for the 2027 general elections, while his Presidential Campaign Council has directed its legal team to pursue an appeal and seek a stay of execution of the ruling where legally applicable.

Atiku rejected the judgment delivered by Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday, November 5, 2026, which nullified the leadership of the ADC under former Senate President David Mark and invalidated decisions taken under its authority, including the presidential nomination that produced him as the party’s flag bearer.

The former Vice President maintained that the decision would not stop his presidential campaign, insisting that the ADC’s nationwide mobilisation would continue despite the legal controversy surrounding the party’s leadership and nomination process.

In a statement issued through Phrank Shaibu, Director of Strategic Communication of the ADC Presidential Campaign Council, Atiku accused the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) of attempting to use judicial proceedings to weaken the opposition and frustrate his presidential ambition.

He alleged that the timing of the judgment was politically motivated, coming shortly after the launch of his campaign in Sokoto State.

“The timing of this judgment is no coincidence. It is part of a strategy to weaken my support in the North and frustrate a campaign whose message is resonating across the country,” Atiku said.

He also rejected attempts to portray his presidential ambition as a project limited to northern Nigeria, maintaining that his candidacy was intended to represent the interests of Nigerians across the country.

“My roots are in Northern Nigeria, but my candidacy belongs to all Nigerians. There is a difference between being from the North and being a candidate only for the North,” he stated.

Atiku described the turnout at his campaign rally in Sokoto as an indication of public support for the ADC’s political message, particularly its promise to address the rising cost of living.

He maintained that the party’s “Affordable Life” campaign would continue in Kebbi State and other parts of Nigeria despite the judgment.

The former Vice President insisted that the judicial setback would not derail his political activities or prevent him from pursuing the legal remedies available to him.

The controversy arose from the judgment delivered by Justice Lifu in suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025, instituted by Nafiu Bala Gombe, a former National Deputy Chairman of the ADC for the North-East.

Gombe challenged the emergence of former Senate President David Mark as the party’s National Chairman and former Osun State Governor Rauf Aregbesola as National Secretary.

He argued that the process through which the two politicians assumed leadership of the ADC was unlawful and claimed that he was entitled to succeed the party’s former National Chairman, Ralph Nwosu.

The suit consequently raised questions about the validity of the ADC leadership arrangement and decisions taken by the disputed executive.

Delivering judgment on Thursday, Justice Lifu invalidated the Mark-led leadership and actions taken under its authority, including nominations conducted for the 2027 general elections.

The decision affected the presidential nomination of Atiku and raised questions about other candidates nominated through processes supervised by the disputed leadership.

The ruling immediately generated reactions from the ADC and its presidential campaign organisation, both of which rejected the decision and maintained that it would be challenged through the appellate process.

Atiku argued that Justice Lifu’s judgment was inconsistent with an earlier decision of the Federal High Court delivered by Justice Musa Liman on July 2, 2026, in suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/1637/2025.

The earlier suit was instituted by a member of the House of Representatives, Leke Abejide, who also challenged the circumstances surrounding the emergence of Mark and Aregbesola as national officers of the ADC.

According to Atiku, Justice Liman dismissed that case after considering issues relating to the jurisdiction of the court, the legal standing of the claimant and the requirement to exhaust internal party dispute-resolution mechanisms.

He maintained that the earlier judgment had also addressed substantive questions concerning the legitimacy of the Mark-led leadership.

Atiku consequently questioned why another case was allowed to proceed over what he considered substantially similar issues involving the same leadership arrangement.

“Why, after that judgment, was another case filed to reopen the same dispute? This is a calculated attempt to circumvent a subsisting judgment. We will challenge this judicial manoeuvre at the Court of Appeal,” he declared.

The former Vice President maintained that the earlier judicial decision should have been taken into account in determining the subsequent leadership dispute.

However, the two cases were instituted by different claimants, and the campaign’s assertion that the judgments conflict remains a matter requiring examination of the respective proceedings and enrolled orders.

The complete orders in Justice Lifu’s judgment had not been independently examined in the report containing Atiku’s reaction.

In a separate statement, the ADC Presidential Campaign Council described the latest judgment as an academic exercise that had been overtaken by subsequent developments within the party.

Its Director of Media and Publicity, Kola Ologbondiyan, disclosed that the council’s legal team was preparing to seek interim judicial relief, including a stay of execution where appropriate, while pursuing an appeal against the decision.

The campaign council maintained that the leadership of the ADC had already been the subject of previous judicial proceedings and that the latest judgment failed to account adequately for developments arising from those proceedings.

Ologbondiyan argued that the earlier case before Justice Liman made a distinction between a stakeholders’ meeting held on July 2, 2025, and a subsequent National Executive Council meeting held on July 29, 2025.

According to him, Mark and Aregbesola emerged as national officers of the ADC at the July 29 meeting rather than through the earlier stakeholders’ gathering.

He further maintained that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) monitored the July 29 meeting, which the council insisted was conducted in accordance with the party’s constitution.

The campaign spokesman argued that the distinction was central to determining the validity of the leadership transition and the subsequent nomination of candidates.

However, the account of INEC’s participation and the legal conclusions attributed to Justice Liman were presented as the campaign council’s position, as the relevant judgment and electoral commission records had not been independently examined in the report.

Ologbondiyan also questioned the timing of Justice Lifu’s ruling, linking it to the political activities of the ruling APC and the opposition ADC.

He contrasted what he described as an unsuccessful APC presidential campaign launch in Kaduna with the ADC’s political mobilisation in Sokoto.

According to him, the judgment came at a time when Atiku’s campaign was gaining support, particularly in northern Nigeria.

The campaign spokesman alleged political interference in the judicial proceedings but did not provide evidence establishing that the ruling party or any government official had improperly influenced the court’s decision.

He also referred to an earlier judgment delivered by Justice Lifu concerning the deregistration of the ADC and four other political parties.

Ologbondiyan maintained that the earlier ruling had attracted appellate intervention and cited it as part of his criticism of the judge’s handling of matters involving political parties.

However, the Court of Appeal’s reported intervention in June concerned a stay of execution of the deregistration judgment, which did not, by itself, establish that the substantive appeal had been finally determined.

The deregistration proceedings were also separate from the latest case challenging the leadership of the ADC.

The campaign council nevertheless insisted that the earlier proceedings were relevant to its concerns about the latest judgment and the treatment of the party within the judicial process.

On the immediate legal steps being contemplated, Ologbondiyan stated that the council’s lawyers were working to secure the necessary interim relief to protect the party’s position while the appellate court considered the dispute.

The proposed application for a stay of execution is intended to seek temporary relief against the enforcement of the judgment, subject to the court’s determination and the legal requirements applicable to the orders made.

However, the campaign council’s statement did not establish that a notice of appeal or application for a stay had already been filed at the time it was issued.

It also did not identify any existing court order suspending Justice Lifu’s judgment.

Accordingly, the council’s announced intention to seek a stay of execution should not be interpreted as confirmation that the judgment had already been suspended.

The distinction is important because the filing of an appeal does not, by itself, automatically amount to an order staying the execution or operation of a judgment.

The campaign council maintained that it would pursue the legal options available to the party while continuing its political activities.

Ologbondiyan also insisted that Mark and Aregbesola remained the legitimate national officers of the ADC, notwithstanding the Federal High Court judgment.

He urged party members and supporters not to allow the controversy to weaken their commitment to the presidential campaign or the party’s preparations for the 2027 elections.

The position followed an earlier statement by the ADC National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, who rejected Justice Lifu’s judgment and accused the APC of attempting to interfere with the internal affairs of the opposition party.

Abdullahi warned that the implications of the decision could extend beyond the presidential nomination to other candidates presented by the ADC for the general elections.

The party maintained that the dispute involved important questions concerning political association, party leadership, compliance with electoral laws and the validity of candidate nominations.

While the ADC and Atiku have accused the ruling party of attempting to exploit the judicial process for political advantage, those allegations remain unproven and have not been established by any judicial finding identified in the statements.

The Federal High Court judgment has therefore left the opposition party confronting both legal and political challenges as it prepares for the 2027 elections.

The immediate controversy concerns the legality of the Mark-led leadership, the validity of decisions taken under its authority and the consequences for Atiku’s presidential nomination.

Another issue is whether the earlier Federal High Court proceedings involving Leke Abejide and the subsequent suit instituted by Nafiu Bala Gombe dealt with the same legal questions and whether their respective decisions can be reconciled.

Those issues are expected to form part of the arguments surrounding the proposed appeal.

For Atiku and his campaign organisation, however, the immediate priority remains challenging the judgment, seeking appropriate interim relief and maintaining the momentum of the ADC’s nationwide campaign.

The former Vice President has insisted that the court decision will not prevent him from continuing his political engagements, with the campaign expected to move from Sokoto to Kebbi State and subsequently to other parts of the country.

The ultimate legal status of the party’s leadership and the validity of its candidate nominations will depend on the determination of the outstanding judicial issues.

Meanwhile, Atiku and the ADC Presidential Campaign Council have reaffirmed their intention to challenge Justice Lifu’s judgment at the Court of Appeal and seek a stay of execution where legally available, while continuing their campaign activities ahead of the 2027 general elections.

The post “Why Was Another Case Filed To Reopen The Same Dispute?” — Atiku Questions Conflicting ADC Judgments, Vows Appeal And Stay Of Execution appeared first on TheNigeriaLawyer.