The African Democratic Congress is fighting on two fronts simultaneously: a legal appeal against the Federal High Court judgment that voided Atiku Abubakar’s candidacy, and a political battle to keep its campaign alive while the courts decide its fate. The party’s response to Justice Peter Lifu’s November 5 ruling has been combative, but it faces structural obstacles that could derail both efforts.
The Missing Judgment and the Procedural Obstacle
The legal obstacle is immediate and procedural. The party’s lawyers applied for the certified true copy of the judgment on the day it was delivered and paid the required fees, but as of November 9 the document had not been released. The ADC’s Director of Strategic Communication, Phrank Shaibu, stated: “He declared in open court that copies were ready. Our counsel applied for the certified copy and paid the required fee, yet the judgment remains out of reach. This is an indefensible denial of access to a ruling that directly affects the party and its members” . Vice-presidential candidate Rotimi Amaechi had earlier alleged on Channels Television that Justice Lifu “disappeared with the judgment,” arguing that without the document the party cannot properly prepare its appeal.
The ADC’s substantive legal argument rests on a coordinate jurisdiction principle. Justice Musa Liman had earlier upheld the Mark-led leadership in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1637/2025, and the party contends that a court of equal jurisdiction cannot overturn that decision. The ADC has also raised a more serious allegation about the assignment of the case itself. According to the party, Justice Emeka Nwite initially heard the matter. The ADC’s National Secretary, Rauf Aregbesola, wrote to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho, on June 2, 2026, objecting to the transfer of the case to Justice Lifu. The following day, Justice Tsoho assigned the case to Justice Lifu anyway. The ADC has called on the National Judicial Council to investigate the reassignment, the formal protest submitted to the Chief Judge, and Justice Lifu’s handling of the proceedings. The party has also cited a separate case in which Justice Lifu reportedly ordered INEC to deregister the ADC and four other parties despite an earlier Court of Appeal order staying proceedings, a decision the appellate court subsequently nullified.
The Political Fight: INEC, the AK-47 Threat and the Kebbi Allegations
The political fight is equally urgent and has expanded beyond the courtroom. In Kebbi State, the party alleged a plot to arrest its spokesperson and other members over political activities. Deputy Publicity Secretary Abubakar Musa said the party’s Local Government Chairman in Maiyama spent nearly two weeks in prison, and about eight media team members face court proceedings.
The ADC has also accused INEC of double standards, questioning why the commission condemned the “rig and die” slogan but remained silent on an alleged threat by the Edo State APC Chairman, Jarrett Tenebe, to use AK-47 rifles against opposition voters. In a statement signed by National Publicity Secretary Bolaji Abdullahi, the party asked: “Why has INEC found its voice to condemn ‘rig and die’ but remained conspicuously silent on the threat by an APC chairman to use AK-47 rifles against opposition voters? Is a slogan more dangerous than a gun?” The party demanded to know whether INEC had referred the alleged threat to security agencies, and argued that the commission’s responsibility went beyond condemning inflammatory statements to ensuring an environment where every Nigerian could vote freely without intimidation.
The ADC’s Director-General of the Presidential Campaign Council, Senator Austin Akobundu, has framed the entire legal offensive as an attempt by the ruling party to avoid a competitive election. “If the federal government and the APC believe they have the capacity to win, let them allow a free and fair election. Let Nigerians choose without intimidation, obstruction or interference,” he said. “They must stop trying to muzzle the political space, using a backdoor court process to remove us from the contest”.
The Legal Expert Consensus and the Timeline
The legal expert consensus is not encouraging for the ADC. Nigerian-born legal scholar Audu Bulama Bukarti noted that while Atiku has the right to change parties, Section 77 of the Electoral Act requires registration 30 days before the primary, and that window has closed. Changing parties would not allow him to run for president under a new platform. The only viable path is the appeal, and the timeline is tight. The election is scheduled for January 16, 2027. If the Court of Appeal does not rule quickly, the ADC could be campaigning for a candidate whose name may not appear on the ballot.
Aregbesola has written to INEC through his lawyer, Mohammed Sheriff, SAN, urging the commission not to remove the party’s leaders as presently constituted in its official records pending the hearing and determination of his appeal. He stated that the notice of appeal and a motion for stay of execution were both filed on November 7 .
What This Means for Voters
For voters, the ADC’s fightback is a test of whether the judicial system can resolve a high-stakes electoral dispute with enough speed to give the electorate certainty. Amaechi’s invocation of the June 12 annulment, however controversial, reflects a historical memory that shapes how many Nigerians interpret judicial interventions against opposition figures. The Reformers, a Lagos-based sociopolitical movement, described the ruling as a “judicial ambush against democracy” and argued that the judgment rested on a contradiction: it held that former National Chairman Ralph Nwosu’s resignation was valid, creating a vacancy, but that Nafiu Bala Gombe’s resignation from the same meeting on the same day was invalid, leaving him as Deputy National Chairman. “You cannot have it both ways. A judgment that has it both ways is not justice. It is ambush,” the group said.
For the diaspora, the allegations of arrests and intimidation in Kebbi, combined with the party’s accusations against INEC and the Chief Judge, suggest that the campaign environment is already hostile in parts of the country. The ADC’s ability to sustain a campaign while fighting a legal battle will determine whether it remains a viable vehicle or becomes another cautionary tale about opposition politics in Nigeria. The Court of Appeal’s handling of the missing judgment and the reassignment controversy will be the first test of whether the 2027 election is decided by votes or by procedural warfare.
Leave a comment