Reported by Weng Patrick Atokor l Journalist at Weng Global
An African Democratic Congress (ADC) lawyer, Kalu Kalu, has insisted that the Federal High Court judgment invalidating the party’s David Mark-led national leadership did not expressly nullify former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar’s candidacy for the 2027 presidential election.
Kalu made the clarification on Wednesday, November 11, 2026, during an appearance on Channels Television’s Politics Today, following the release of the Certified True Copy (CTC) of the controversial judgment delivered by Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja.
He argued that the court’s decision had been misinterpreted by individuals suggesting that Atiku had automatically lost his position as the ADC’s presidential candidate.
According to the lawyer, the judgment specifically invalidated actions taken by David Mark and former National Secretary Rauf Aregbesola in their capacity as national officers of the party, rather than expressly declaring Atiku’s candidacy void.
His position introduces another legal argument into the growing dispute over the ADC’s leadership and its ability to participate fully in Nigeria’s 2027 general elections.
Lawyer Challenges Interpretation of Court Judgment
Speaking on the television programme, Kalu maintained that the judgment did not contain an explicit order cancelling Atiku’s presidential nomination.
He urged Nigerians to examine the actual wording of the court’s decision rather than rely on interpretations circulating in political and media discussions.
The lawyer said the operative portion of the judgment declared actions taken by Mark and Aregbesola from July 29, 2025, null and void.
He argued that interpreting this declaration as an express order removing Atiku from the presidential race amounted to introducing a conclusion that the court had not specifically stated.
Kalu’s argument centres on the distinction between an order invalidating decisions made by a disputed party leadership and an explicit judicial declaration cancelling an individual candidate’s nomination.
However, the legal implications of the court’s decision remain contested because Atiku’s emergence as the ADC presidential candidate followed a primary organised under the leadership whose authority the court invalidated.
Channels Television reported that Kalu made his comments after the authenticated judgment became available on November 11.
Background to the Federal High Court Ruling
The controversy began with a leadership dispute within the ADC following the resignation of former National Chairman Ralph Nwosu and other members of the party’s national leadership in July 2025.
Following the leadership changes, former Senate President David Mark emerged as National Chairman, while former Osun State Governor Rauf Aregbesola became National Secretary.
The transition was challenged by Nafiu Bala Gombe, a former ADC Deputy National Chairman (North-East), who argued that the process through which Mark and other officials assumed their positions violated the party’s constitution and applicable electoral laws.
Gombe approached the Federal High Court in Abuja in a suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025, seeking to invalidate the leadership arrangement.
Justice Peter Lifu delivered judgment on November 5, 2026, ruling against the Mark-led leadership.
The court held that the emergence of Mark and Aregbesola had not been demonstrated to satisfy the legal requirements for the democratic election of party officers under Section 82(3) of the Electoral Act 2022.
It subsequently invalidated actions taken by the disputed leadership and restrained the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising Mark, Aregbesola and the other affected officials as national officers of the party.
The ruling also affected the decisions through which the ADC organised its presidential primary and presented candidates for the 2027 elections.
Why Atiku’s Candidacy Became a Legal Issue
Atiku Abubakar emerged as the ADC’s presidential candidate after winning the party’s presidential primary organised under the Mark-led leadership.
Consequently, the court’s decision to invalidate actions taken by that leadership raised questions about the legal status of the primary election and the nominations that followed.
The dispute is particularly significant because Atiku is seeking another opportunity to contest Nigeria’s presidency after finishing second in the 2023 presidential election.
The former Vice-President served under President Olusegun Obasanjo between 1999 and 2007 and has remained one of the country’s prominent opposition politicians.
The ADC had positioned itself as an alternative political platform ahead of the 2027 elections, attracting politicians seeking to challenge the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC).
However, the leadership dispute has created uncertainty over whether the party can maintain its existing political arrangements and retain its candidates.
Although Kalu argues that Atiku’s candidacy was not expressly cancelled, the broader wording of the court’s orders has provided grounds for the opposing interpretation.
In its November 12 report, The Punch stated that the Certified True Copy of the judgment contained an order invalidating all actions, decisions and steps taken by Mark and Aregbesola as national officers from July 29, 2025.
The newspaper also reported that the judgment affected the process that produced Atiku as the ADC’s presidential candidate.
This distinction is important: the absence of a separately worded order naming Atiku does not, by itself, settle whether the wider orders invalidate the process through which he obtained the party’s ticket.
The ultimate legal effect will depend on the interpretation of the judgment and any decisions made by appellate courts.
ADC Rejects Judgment and Pursues Legal Challenge
The ADC has strongly rejected Justice Lifu’s judgment, maintaining that the decision is legally flawed and conflicts with an earlier ruling involving the party’s leadership.
The party has particularly relied on a July 2, 2026 judgment delivered by Justice Musa Liman of the Federal High Court in Abuja.
According to the ADC, the earlier judgment affirmed the legitimacy of the Mark-led National Working Committee and directed INEC to recognise the leadership.
The party has therefore questioned whether a Federal High Court judge could make a subsequent decision that conflicts with an existing judgment delivered by another court of coordinate jurisdiction.
Following the November 5 ruling, the ADC announced that it would challenge the decision through the available judicial processes.
Atiku also rejected the judgment, describing it as an attempt to disrupt his political ambition and the opposition movement.
His campaign council maintained that the former Vice-President would pursue the legal options available to him while continuing preparations for the 2027 election.
The party’s position, however, does not resolve the dispute. The interpretation of the judgment, its enforceability and the outcome of any appeal remain matters for the courts.
INEC’s Position and the Next Legal Steps
The position of the Independent National Electoral Commission is another important factor in determining the consequences of the judgment.
According to The Punch’s November 12 report, INEC said it would examine the Certified True Copy of the ruling and obtain legal advice before deciding what action to take.
Mohammed Haruna, the commission’s National Commissioner and Chairman of its Information and Voter Education Committee, said the commission would review the judgment through its legal department and relevant internal committees.
The commission’s position suggests that the electoral consequences of the ruling require further consideration rather than an immediate administrative decision based solely on competing political interpretations.
Meanwhile, the ADC and its affected candidates have maintained that they intend to pursue their right of appeal.
The outcome of the appeal process could determine whether the party’s leadership structure and nominations remain valid or whether further steps will be required to comply with electoral and judicial decisions.
Wider Implications for the 2027 Elections
The disagreement over Atiku’s candidacy highlights the growing legal and political challenges facing Nigeria’s opposition parties ahead of the 2027 general elections.
For the ADC, the dispute extends beyond the presidential ticket. The court’s decision potentially affects other candidates whose nominations were processed under the Mark-led leadership.
The situation could also influence the party’s organisational stability, campaign preparations and ability to coordinate its activities nationwide.
For Atiku, the uncertainty creates an additional challenge as he seeks to consolidate opposition support and position himself as a major challenger to President Bola Tinubu.
The dispute also raises broader questions about internal party democracy, compliance with electoral laws and the responsibility of political parties to follow constitutional procedures when changing their leadership.
Nigeria’s electoral framework requires political parties to conduct their internal affairs in accordance with applicable constitutional and statutory provisions. The courts therefore play an important role in resolving disputes where competing factions disagree over leadership legitimacy and nomination procedures.
At the same time, the right of political parties and affected candidates to challenge judicial decisions through established appeal procedures remains an important part of the country’s democratic system.
What Happens Next?
The immediate focus is on the legal proceedings arising from Justice Lifu’s November 5 judgment.
The ADC is expected to pursue its appeal, while INEC must determine how the judgment affects its recognition of the party’s leadership and candidates.
Kalu’s interpretation will likely remain part of the legal debate surrounding Atiku’s presidential ambition. However, his comments should be understood as the position of a lawyer representing the ADC, rather than a final judicial determination of the matter.
The appellate courts will have an opportunity to examine the disputed judgment and determine the legal consequences of its orders.
Until the relevant legal processes are resolved, the disagreement over Atiku’s candidacy is likely to remain a significant issue in Nigeria’s preparations for the 2027 presidential election.
For now, the central question is not simply whether the judgment expressly names Atiku, but whether the court’s decision to invalidate actions taken by the Mark-led leadership legally affects the presidential primary that produced him as the ADC’s candidate.
Weng Global – Stories beyond borders
Sources
1. Channels Television – Justice Lifu’s Judgment Does Not Void Atiku’s Candidacy, ADC Lawyer
2. The Punch – 2027: Court Judgment Worsens Atiku’s Troubles
3. Reuters – Nigerian Court Voids Candidacy of Opposition ADC’s Atiku for 2027 Election
4. Premium Times – ADC Rejects Judgement Sacking Mark, Atiku, Blames APC
5. BusinessDay – Lawyers Split Over Impact of Ruling on ADC, Atiku, Other Candidates
