By Ikechukwu Nnochiri, ABUJA

Beyond the euphoria of Supreme Court’s recent decision that handed a lifeline to the African Democratic Congress (ADC), the party still faces a complex web of litigation that could jeopardize its participation and competitiveness in the 2027 general elections.

Read Also: 2027 presidency: ADC members divided over Obi/Kwankwaso or Atiku/Makinde/Amaechi pairing

The party is still deeply embroiled in make-or-break court cases. At the fulcrum of the litigations are internal wranglings over the soul of the party.  Old members who felt sidelined by political bigwigs they regard as usurpers are struggling to seize the reins of leadership at the national and sub-national levels.

With the May 10 deadline set by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) for political parties to submit their membership registers ahead of the general elections looming, the success of the pending litigations may render the apex court’s verdict a Pyrrhic victory for the Senator David Mark-led leadership of the ADC.

Pursuant to Section 77(4) of the Electoral Act 2026, political parties must submit their membership registers no later than 21 days before conducting primary elections.

Accordingly, the ADC and other parties must hold their primaries before May 30, 2026, provided they meet the 21-day submission requirement.

Under the updated INEC timetable, the Presidential and National Assembly elections are scheduled for January 16, 2027, while the Governorship and State Houses of Assembly elections will occur on February 6, 2027.

Nomination forms for candidates must be submitted between June 27 and July 11, 2026, with publication of the final list of candidates set for November 15, 2026.

Campaigns for Presidential and National Assembly elections will commence on August 19, 2026, and conclude on January 14, 2027; those for Governorship and State Houses of Assembly elections will run from September 9, 2026, to February 4, 2027.

Currently, the ADC is racing against time due to ongoing litigations, many of which may ultimately reach the Supreme Court.

In one of the pending cases marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1637/2025, filed by House of Representatives member Leke Abejide, he is seeking to bar Senator Mark and Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola from parading themselves as National Chairman and National Secretary of the ADC, respectively. 

Those listed as the 1st to 5th defendants in the matter are the ADC; its former National Chairman, Ralph Nwosu; Mark; Aregbesola; and the INEC.

The plaintiff seeks an order nullifying Nwosu’s handover of ADC’s leadership to Mark and Aregbesola as interim national chairman and interim national secretary, respectively, on July 2, 2025, at the Shehu Musa Yar’Adua Centre in Abuja, for being illegal, unlawful, null, and void.

He also seeks a perpetual injunction restraining Mark and Aregbesola from parading themselves as party leaders, as their “purported appointment, selection, or election was unlawful, illegal, null, and void.”

Additionally, the plaintiff wants a perpetual injunction barring INEC from recognizing Mark and Aregbesola as ADC’s interim national chairman and secretary, insisting their “appointment, selection, or election did not meet the requirements of Section 82 of the Electoral Act, 2022.”

The ADC, Nwosu, Mark, and Aregbesola specifically challenged the plaintiff’s locus standi (legal standing) to institute the action.

All the defendants argued that the suit concerns a political party’s internal affairs, which are non-justiciable, and that the court lacks jurisdiction to intervene.

 They stated that contrary to the plaintiff’s claims, the Mark-led leadership was elected on July 29, 2025, at the party’s National Executive Committee meeting—not on July 2.

INEC also filed an eight-paragraph counter-affidavit challenging the suit’s competence. 

Although Justice Musa Liman had concluded the hearings, he left the delivery of judgment on the matter hanging.

Another legal obstacle before the ADC is the suit that was filed by its former national deputy chairman (North-East), Nafiu Bala Gombe, which the Supreme Court returned to the High Court for a hearing.

Justice Emeka Nwite had adjourned the case marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025, sine die (indefinitely) to await the apex court’s verdict. 

Gombe is challenging the legality of the Senator Mark-led Caretaker Committee, insisting that Nwosu’s resignation as the party’s former Chairman qualifies him to assume leadership.

He is seeking to invalidate all actions that have so far been taken by the Mark-led Committee. 

It was his suit that prompted the now-nullified Court of Appeal’s contentious order to maintain the status quo ante bellum.

With the Supreme Court having paved the way, Justice Nwite would likely hear the case next week.

Another legal headwind that could impact the ADC’s political fortunes is a judgment delivered by the Federal High Court on April 29, which restrained INEC from recognising or participating in any state congresses organised by committees appointed by the Senator Mark-led executives of the party.

The court, in the judgment by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, also restrained the Senator Mark-led executives from interfering with the tenure and functions of elected state executives of the party.

It held that the responsibility for conducting state congresses of political parties rests with elected state executive committees and not the national leadership. 

According to the court, the four-year tenure of the ADC’s State Working Committees and State Executive Committees remained valid and subsisting, pending the conduct of properly constituted congresses and the convocation of a national convention.

The judgment followed a suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/581/2026, which was lodged before the court by aggrieved members of the ADC. 

Those behind the suit are: Don Norman Obinna, Johnny Tovie Derek, Obah C. Ehigiator, Hon. Olona Yinka, Dr. Charles Idowu Omideji, Samuel Pam Gyang, and Obianyo Patrick, who told the court that they sued for themselves and on behalf of all State Chairmen and State Executive Committees of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).

Listed as defendants in the matter are the ADC; Sen. David Mark; Sen. Patricia Akwashiki; Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi; Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola; Prof. Oserheimen Osunbor (sued on behalf of the Caretaker/Interim National Working Committee) and INEC.

The plaintiffs had among other things, challenged the decision of the Senator Mark-led leadership of the ADC to constitute committees for the purpose of conducting state congresses ahead of the 2027 polls.

They challenged the validity of appointments made by the Mark-led caretaker committee, arguing that planned state congresses, if conducted under the supervision of the said caretaker committee, would constitute a gross violation of the party’s constitution.

The court agreed with the litigants and held that neither the 1999 Constitution, as amended, nor the Constitution of the ADC, empowered the caretaker/interim National Working Committee led by Senator Mark, to appoint committees for the purpose of conducting state congresses.

The Mark-led ADC had since expressed their intention to challenge the judgment at the Court of Appeal. 

Notably, the 2023 presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Dumebi Kachikwu, is also in court challenging what he maintains was an improper takeover of the party by the Senator Mark-led Caretaker Committee.

Though the suit—marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1331/2025 and instituted by Kachikwu alongside four others (Adikwu Elias, Etimbuk Umoh, Muhammad Khala, and Alakum William)—was dismissed on March 5 by Justice Abdulmalik as a non-justiciable domestic affair of a political party, the plaintiffs appeared unsatisfied with the verdict.

Already, the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, has thrown his weight behind another suit seeking to compel the INEC to deregister the ADC and four other political parties.

In processes he filed before the Federal High Court in Abuja, the AGF argued that the continued existence of the ADC and the other parties violates extant provisions of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and ultimately undermines the nation’s electoral integrity.

According to him, unless the court intervenes, INEC would continue to act in breach of its constitutional duty by retaining parties that have failed to meet the minimum requirements prescribed by law.

Aside from the ADC, the other political parties the AGF argued should cease to be accorded recognition by INEC are the Action Peoples Party (APP), Action Alliance (AA), Accord Party (AP), and Zenith Labour Party (ZLP).

The AGF, in an affidavit he filed through a team of lawyers led by Prof. Joshua Olatoke, SAN, maintained that as the chief law officer of the federation, he is duty-bound to defend and uphold the Constitution, including ensuring compliance with the Electoral Act and other laws governing elections in the country.

He argued that INEC “has no residual discretion to retain the registration of political parties that have clearly failed to satisfy the minimum threshold prescribed under section 225A of the Constitution.”

“The continued existence of non-performing political parties will inflate the ballots, burden public funds, complicate election administration, and undermine the constitutional intention behind section 225A of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).

“Any failure or refusal of the 1st Defendant to deregister the 3rd to 7th Defendants as political parties constitutes a continuing breach of constitutional duty, capable of being challenged by way of public interest litigation,” he added. 

Consequently, he urged the court to grant all the reliefs contained in a suit filed by the National Forum of Former Legislators, insisting that doing so would be in the interest of justice.

While INEC is the 1st Defendant, the AGF is listed as the 2nd Defendant in the matter.

The plaintiff, in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2637/2026, is praying the court to determine whether INEC has a constitutional obligation to remove political parties that fail to meet electoral performance thresholds set out in Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), as reinforced by the Electoral Act 2022 and INEC’s regulations.

It is the position of the plaintiff that the five political parties listed as defendants in the suit have persistently failed to meet the constitutional benchmarks required to retain their registration.

The former legislators stressed that some of the requirements include winning at least 25 per cent of votes in a state during a presidential election or securing at least one elective seat at the national, state, or local government level.

They told the court that the ADC and the four other parties performed poorly in both the 2023 general elections and by-elections conducted by INEC, thereby failing to win seats across key tiers of government.

The litigants insisted that the continued existence of the ADC and the other defendants, as recognised political parties, is unlawful and undermines the integrity of the country’s electoral system. Among other reliefs, the plaintiff wants the court to compel the INEC to deregister the five political parties before preparations for the 2027 elections advance further. Beyond declaratory reliefs, the plaintiff want the court to restrain the five affected parties from participating in the general elections or engaging in political activities such as campaigns, rallies, and primaries.

As it stands, without a definitive conclusion of the cases before INEC’s deadline for nomination of candidates expires, the fate of the ADC hangs in the balance.