Reported by Weng Patrick Atokor l Journalist at Weng Global
Former Kogi West Senator Dino Melaye has denied making comments about the reported illness of Federal High Court Judge, Justice Peter Lifu, following criticism from Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) chieftain Buba Galadima.
The disagreement has drawn attention to the political tensions surrounding a Federal High Court judgment involving the leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), as opposition figures continue to debate the ruling and its implications ahead of Nigeria’s 2027 general elections.
At the centre of the dispute is a distinction between what Melaye says he actually commented on and what Galadima believes his remarks suggested about the judge’s health.
What Triggered the Disagreement?
The controversy followed comments Galadima made during an interview on African Independent Television (AIT) on Wednesday, November 11, 2026.
Galadima criticised members of the ADC over their reported reaction to Justice Lifu’s health condition. He argued that celebrating the judge’s reported illness was misplaced because his possible absence from Nigeria could complicate the party’s efforts to appeal the judgment.
According to Galadima, if the judge travelled abroad for medical treatment, the process of obtaining and signing the necessary court records could be affected.
He suggested that ADC members should concentrate on securing the documents required for an appeal rather than reacting to reports about the judge’s health.
Galadima also questioned the party’s understanding of the legal implications, making remarks that he believed reflected a lack of political and legal awareness among some of its members. Daily Post Nigeria +1
Why Dino Melaye Rejected the Characterisation
Melaye’s reported response centres on a denial that he commented on Justice Lifu’s illness.
The distinction is important because Galadima’s criticism connected Melaye’s earlier remarks to the reported celebration of the judge’s health condition.
Melaye’s position, as reflected in the supplied account, is that he did not make the comments attributed to him about the judge’s illness.
This makes the disagreement partly about the interpretation and attribution of political statements, rather than simply the judge’s health.
However, the exact wording and original publication of Melaye’s latest response have not been independently established from the available reports. It would therefore be inappropriate to present an unverified quotation as his direct statement.
Background to the Justice Peter Lifu Judgment
Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja delivered a judgment on November 5, 2026, concerning the leadership dispute within the ADC.
The dispute involved the party’s leadership under former Senate President David Mark and former Minister of Interior Rauf Aregbesola, alongside Nafiu Bala Gombe.
Reports on the judgment indicate that the court invalidated resolutions of the party’s 99th National Executive Committee meeting held on July 29, 2025, through which Mark and Aregbesola emerged as national officers.
The court also restrained the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising or dealing with the affected individuals as the party’s national officers.
The decision created fresh uncertainty within the opposition party, particularly regarding its leadership arrangements and preparations for the 2027 general elections. TheNigeriaLawyer +1
The Controversy Over the Certified True Copy
Another important development in the dispute concerned the release of the certified true copy (CTC) of the judgment.
The ADC had faced difficulties obtaining the written judgment, which was necessary for its legal challenge.
Former Rivers State Governor Rotimi Amaechi had earlier criticised the delay, alleging during an appearance on Channels Television that Justice Lifu had disappeared with the judgment.
However, on November 11, Melaye announced that the party had received the certified true copy.
He also stated that the judgment did not mention former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar or any other presidential candidate by name.
Melaye used the development to challenge interpretations suggesting that the judgment had directly ruled against Atiku’s presidential ambitions.
Nevertheless, the absence of a candidate’s name from a judgment does not automatically establish that the court’s orders cannot affect the political or administrative processes through which that candidate emerged.
The legal implications therefore remain a separate question from whether Atiku was expressly mentioned in the judgment. P.M. News +1
Why the Disagreement Matters for Nigeria’s Opposition
The exchange between Melaye and Galadima comes at a sensitive period for Nigeria’s opposition parties.
With the 2027 general elections approaching, political parties are dealing with questions of leadership, internal organisation, alliances and candidate selection.
The ADC has become an important part of discussions about opposition cooperation and the possibility of presenting a strong challenge to the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC).
Consequently, the Federal High Court judgment has implications beyond the immediate disagreement over party leadership.
It raises questions about how internal party disputes, court decisions and electoral regulations can affect political participation.
The disagreement also illustrates how divisions among opposition figures can attract attention away from broader political and organisational challenges.
For the opposition, maintaining internal cohesion while pursuing legitimate legal remedies could be important in preparing for the next election.
Understanding the Legal Issue
One issue raised by Galadima concerns the availability of court records when a judge is reportedly unavailable.
Court records are important in appellate proceedings because parties challenging a decision generally need the relevant proceedings and documents to prepare their cases.
However, Galadima’s assertion that no other judge could sign the records in Justice Lifu’s absence should be understood as his argument, not an independently established legal conclusion.
The precise procedural requirements depend on the applicable court rules and circumstances.
It is also important to distinguish between the judge’s reported health condition, his possible absence from the country and the actual status of the ADC’s appeal.
These are separate matters and should not be treated as confirmed developments without supporting official information.
What Happens Next?
The immediate focus remains on the ADC’s legal challenge to the November 5 judgment and the consequences of the ruling for the party’s leadership.
The party’s receipt of the certified true copy represents an important procedural development because it provides the written decision needed to pursue its challenge.
The outcome of any appeal will be significant in determining the legal position of the disputed leadership arrangements.
Meanwhile, the disagreement between Melaye and Galadima adds another dimension to the political debate surrounding the ADC.
Neither politician’s comments, however, determine the legal outcome of the case.
The courts will ultimately determine the issues brought before them in accordance with applicable law.
For Nigerians following the 2027 political landscape, the central questions remain whether the ADC can resolve its leadership dispute, successfully challenge the judgment and maintain an effective political platform ahead of the elections.
Weng Global Explains: The Bigger Picture
The disagreement between Dino Melaye and Buba Galadima is about more than a political exchange involving a judge’s reported illness.
It reflects the wider tensions surrounding the ADC’s leadership crisis, the interpretation of a significant court judgment and the challenges facing Nigeria’s opposition ahead of 2027.
Melaye’s denial introduces a question of attribution: whether he actually made the comments Galadima associated with him.
Galadima, meanwhile, has raised concerns about the possible procedural consequences of the judge’s reported absence.
Ultimately, three issues should remain separate: Justice Lifu’s health, the legal implications of his availability and the ADC’s right to challenge the court’s decision.
Keeping those issues distinct is essential to understanding the controversy without allowing political arguments to replace established facts.
For Weng Global readers, the important development to watch is how the ADC’s legal challenge progresses and what the outcome means for opposition politics in Nigeria.
Weng Global – Stories beyond borders
Sources
- Daily Post Nigeria – No Intelligent People in ADC – Buba Galadima Blasts Melaye Over Justice Lifu’s Absence. Read report.
- TheNigeriaLawyer – Galadima Faults ADC Over Justice Lifu’s Reported Illness. Read report.
- P.M. News – 2027: We’ve Received Lifu’s Judgment, Atiku Not Mentioned – Melaye. Read report.
- FactCheck Africa – Does Justice Lifu’s Judgment Mention Atiku or Other ADC Candidates? Read fact-check.
