…Shehu Sani warns that one man can bring down an entire party as lawyers declare all ADC candidates voided by court judgment
…Atiku’s camp attacks judge, vows appeal; US lobbyist Von Batten-Montague-York threatens to report Keyamo to Trump administration, Congress
…Questions mount over failure to resolve Bala’s leadership challenge before building 2027 electoral structure
The political storm triggered by Thursday’s Federal High Court judgment against the David Mark-led leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) has intensified, with critics questioning former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar’s handling of the party’s internal crisis, even as his supporters accuse the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) of orchestrating the legal setback.
Former Kaduna Central Senator Shehu Sani has added a significant dimension to the controversy, warning that powerful interests within political parties cannot be ignored and that a single aggrieved individual can bring down an entire political structure.
His intervention came as lawyers representing Nafiu Bala Gombe, whose challenge to the Mark-led leadership succeeded in court, declared that the judgment had effectively nullified every ADC candidacy for the 2027 general elections, from the presidency to governorship, National Assembly and state legislative seats.
The development has raised questions about the political judgement of Atiku and his allies, who proceeded to establish a national leadership, conduct primaries, and launch their presidential campaign despite the unresolved legal challenge to their control of the party.
Atiku’s camp has launched a fierce attack on the judgement, questioned the conduct of the presiding judge, and accused the APC of attempting to eliminate its principal challenger through judicial intervention.
The controversy has also acquired an international dimension, with Atiku’s United States lobbyist, Von Batten-Montague-York, threatening to report Aviation Minister Festus Keyamo to the administration of President Donald Trump and members of the US Congress over his reaction to the judgement.
SHEHU SANI: ONE MAN CAN BRING DOWN AN ENTIRE PARTY
In a commentary that has acquired particular significance following the judgement, Sani argued that politicians frequently underestimate the entrenched interests controlling established political parties.
According to him, although parties are theoretically voluntary associations, their leadership structures are often determined by powerful individuals operating behind the scenes.
“All political parties are theoretically free associations that you can join. It’s when you decide to join that you’ll meet the owners and Lords of the party,” he wrote.
Sani explained that party executives, from national headquarters to ward levels, frequently owe their emergence to influential sponsors whose interests cannot easily be displaced.
“When you gate crash into a party, you can only have peace if the owners of the party allow you to have peace,” he warned.
He specifically referenced the ADC crisis as an illustration of the dangers confronting politicians who enter existing political organisations without securing the cooperation of their established power structures.
“The case of ADC can only shock or surprise people who refused to acknowledge the fact that every party belongs to some people, and that one man can bring a whole building down with internal or external support,” Sani declared.
He added that every political party has its own “cartel or cabal,” noting that even founding members sometimes become embroiled in struggles over leadership and control.
Although Sani did not expressly blame Atiku for the ADC crisis, his remarks have reinforced criticism that the former Vice-President and his coalition partners underestimated the resistance of existing party stakeholders.
LAWYERS DECLARE ALL ADC CANDIDATES INVALIDATED
The most far-reaching consequence of Thursday’s judgement emerged from the interpretation offered by senior lawyers representing Bala.
Luka Musa Haruna (SAN), one of the plaintiff’s counsel, told journalists that the ruling had effectively eliminated the party’s candidates for every category of elective office in 2027.
“As it stands today, the ADC has no candidate from the presidential level to the House of Assembly, governorship, Senate and all other elective positions for the 2027 election,” he declared.
“They don’t have any representation as it stands today, except you are from the camp of Nafiu Bala, who is the substantive chairman of the ADC.”
Another counsel, Lukman Fagbemi (SAN), said the court had invalidated all decisions taken by the disputed leadership since July 27, 2025.
“All the actions taken by the ADC as a party since July 27 to date stand annulled,” Fagbemi stated.
The lawyers’ interpretation means that Atiku’s presidential ticket and the nominations of other candidates produced under the Mark-led leadership are potentially affected by the judgement.
The ruling, however, remains subject to appeal, and the precise legal implications for individual candidates will depend on the terms of the judgement and any subsequent decisions of the appellate courts.
Nevertheless, the declaration that the ADC currently has no valid candidates has dramatically raised the stakes of the leadership dispute.
For candidates who invested resources in securing party nominations and establishing campaign structures, the uncertainty could have serious political and financial consequences.
HOW ATIKU’S COALITION WALKED INTO THE CRISIS
The controversy originated from the leadership transition that followed the resignation of former ADC National Chairman Ralph Nwosu.
Bala, then Deputy National Chairman (North-East), maintained that the party’s constitution entitled him to assume the chairmanship following Nwosu’s departure.
However, the opposition coalition that entered the ADC installed a leadership arrangement headed by former Senate President David Mark, with former Interior Minister Rauf Aregbesola as National Secretary.
Bala challenged the arrangement in court, arguing that the new leadership had emerged through procedures inconsistent with the party’s constitution.
His suit, FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025, named the ADC, the Independent National Electoral Commission, Mark, Aregbesola and Nwosu as defendants.
Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court, Abuja, upheld Bala’s challenge on Thursday, declaring the Mark-led caretaker leadership illegal and invalidating decisions taken under its authority.
The court also directed INEC not to recognise or act upon decisions taken at the party’s disputed 99th National Executive Committee meeting of July 27, 2025.
The judgement consequently struck at the legal foundation of the leadership structure responsible for producing Atiku and other ADC candidates.
Significantly, the litigation had already passed through higher courts before the Supreme Court returned it to the Federal High Court for determination of the substantive issues.
According to Bala’s lawyers, the Supreme Court had directed that the substantive dispute be heard and determined.
Critics argue that this should have alerted the coalition to the dangers of proceeding with major electoral decisions before resolving the leadership question.
The central criticism is that Atiku and his allies treated the disagreement as a manageable internal challenge when it had the potential to undermine the legal authority of the entire party leadership.
COMMENTATOR ACCUSES ATIKU OF REPEATING PDP MISTAKES
Political commentator Onovughe Igwe has been particularly critical of Atiku’s handling of the controversy, drawing parallels with the internal divisions that weakened the Peoples Democratic Party ahead of the 2023 presidential election.
Igwe argued that Atiku failed to manage the dispute involving former Rivers State Governor Nyesom Wike and the PDP leadership following the party’s presidential primary.
He recalled how the controversy surrounding former National Chairman Iyorchia Ayu and demands for a change in the party’s leadership contributed to a prolonged political confrontation.
According to him, Atiku subsequently moved into another political platform already burdened by internal disagreements.
Describing the ADC as “a party already in crisis before they came,” Igwe questioned why the coalition failed to negotiate a settlement with Bala and other aggrieved stakeholders.
He suggested that Atiku could have avoided the present predicament by accommodating the existing leadership interests rather than allowing the dispute to escalate into a decisive court battle.
Igwe also criticised what he considered premature celebrations by Atiku’s supporters when earlier stages of the litigation appeared favourable to the coalition.
“Politics is governance. It needs strategy. If you can’t play politics of strategy, you can’t govern effectively,” he wrote.
His commentary went further, questioning Atiku’s political judgement and suggesting that the ADC crisis reflected weaknesses in the former Vice-President’s approach to managing alliances and internal disagreements.
KTH Daily maintains that those assessments remain the commentator’s opinions, but they highlight a growing debate over whether the crisis was avoidable.
ATIKU REJECTS JUDGMENT, BLAMES POLITICAL INTERFERENCE
Atiku has rejected the ruling and announced plans to challenge it at the Court of Appeal.
In a statement issued through Phrank Shaibu, Director of Strategic Communication of the ADC Presidential Campaign Council, the former Vice-President questioned the timing and legal basis of the judgement.
He argued that another Federal High Court judgment delivered by Justice Musa Liman on 2 July 2026, had already dismissed a challenge to the Mark-led leadership.
Atiku cited suit FHC/ABJ/CS/1637/2025, saying the court had upheld objections concerning jurisdiction, standing and failure to exhaust internal party remedies.
“Why, after that judgment, was another case filed to reopen the same dispute? This is a calculated attempt to circumvent a subsisting judgement. We will challenge this judicial manoeuvre at the Court of Appeal,” he declared.
The former Vice-President also linked the judgement’s timing to his campaign activities in Sokoto and Kebbi states.
“The timing of this judgement 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,” he alleged.
Atiku insisted that the ADC’s campaign would continue despite the legal setback.
He maintained that the large turnout at his Sokoto rally demonstrated public support for his promise to address the rising cost of living.
However, the existence of the earlier judgement does not, without examining the issues and parties involved in both cases, conclusively establish that Thursday’s ruling was legally improper.
That question is expected to become an important issue in the proposed appeal.
ATIKU’S SPOKESPERSON TURN FIRE ON JUDGE
Atiku’s media adviser, Paul Ibe, has also criticised the judgement, questioning the continued service of Justice Lifu.
In a statement, Ibe referred to an earlier appellate criticism of the judge and demanded scrutiny by the National Judicial Council.
“How does a judge whose conduct the Court of Appeal condemned as ‘judicial rascality’ continue to sit on the Bench without a public accounting?” he asked.
He argued that the judgement raised serious concerns about judicial consistency and democratic participation.
“Any attempt to exclude the ADC from the 2027 elections risks a crisis of democratic legitimacy,” Ibe warned.
Kenneth Okonkwo, another spokesman associated with Atiku’s campaign, circulated a substantially identical statement, also questioning the judgement and warning against attempts to exclude opposition candidates.
Both interventions accused the political establishment of threatening electoral competition.
However, neither statement directly addressed the strategic question of why the coalition proceeded with its electoral arrangements while the substantive leadership dispute remained unresolved.
US LOBBYIST VON BATTEN-MONTAGUE-YORK THREATENS KEYAMO, TINUBU
The ADC leadership crisis has also taken an international dimension, with Atiku Abubakar’s United States lobbyist, Von Batten-Montague-York, threatening to report Aviation and Aerospace Development Minister Festus Keyamo to the administration of US President Donald Trump and members of Congress over his reaction to Thursday’s court judgement.
In a strongly worded post on X, Von Batten-Montague-York accused the Tinubu administration of celebrating a judicial decision that could eliminate Atiku, whom he described as the President’s principal challenger in the 2027 election.
He claimed that a senior congressional staffer had characterised Keyamo’s reaction as an “open display of election interference by the Nigerian government.”
Von Batten-Montague-York said Keyamo’s social media post would be presented to officials of the Trump administration and relevant congressional committees as evidence of alleged political interference.
He also warned that the judgement and the minister’s reaction could eventually have serious political consequences for President Tinubu.
KTH Daily reports, however, that the allegations remain unsubstantiated as there has been no independently established evidence that the Tinubu administration instigated Bala’s legal challenge or influenced the court’s decision.
The threatened international action nevertheless represents an escalation of Atiku’s response to the ADC crisis, as his supporters seek to portray the party’s internal leadership dispute as an attempt by the Nigerian government to undermine democratic competition.
OBI, SDP, CUPP ACCUSE APC OF UNDERMINING OPPOSITION
Other opposition figures have joined the criticism of the judgement.
Peter Obi, presidential candidate of the Nigeria Democratic Congress, expressed concern about uncertainty surrounding political parties and their candidates ahead of the elections.
Although he acknowledged the authority of courts to resolve legal disputes, Obi warned that electoral uncertainty could weaken public confidence in democracy.
“One mark of democracy is that at all times, it is voters and not courts that choose leaders,” he stated.
The Coalition of United Political Parties also condemned the ruling, alleging that the APC was benefiting from efforts to weaken opposition political structures.
The coalition warned against what it described as attempts to create a one-party state.
Similarly, Social Democratic Party National Chairman Prof. Sadiq Gombe criticised the possible exclusion of Atiku and called on INEC, the judiciary, and security agencies to remain impartial.
The opposition groups maintained that political parties should be allowed to organise freely and present candidates for elections.
Their allegations of government involvement, however, have not been established by the facts presented in the judgement.
The litigation originated from a dispute between competing interests within the ADC itself.
A CRISIS OF POLITICAL STRATEGY OR JUDICIAL INTERFERENCE?
The sharply contrasting reactions have exposed two competing explanations for the ADC’s predicament.
Atiku and his supporters portray the judgement as an attempt to weaken a growing opposition movement and restrict electoral competition.
Their critics, however, argue that the coalition’s problems are largely self-inflicted, arising from its failure to resolve an internal leadership dispute before proceeding with its electoral programme.
The latter argument has gained prominence following the declaration by Bala’s lawyers that the judgement has effectively voided every ADC candidate produced by the disputed leadership.
The consequences, if the ruling survives appeal, could extend well beyond Atiku’s presidential ambition to candidates seeking elective positions across the country.
It also raises questions about the political and legal advice received by the coalition during its takeover of the ADC.
KTH Daily analysts question why Bala’s challenge was not resolved through negotiation or internal party mechanisms before the new leadership proceeded with major electoral decisions?
Why did the coalition continue to build its 2027 campaign structure upon a leadership arrangement whose legality remained before the courts?
And could a political settlement with the aggrieved faction have prevented the present crisis?
These questions remain largely unanswered amid the accusations directed at the APC and the judiciary.
For now, the ADC has announced its intention to appeal, while its candidates face uncertainty over the legal status of their nominations.
The appellate courts will ultimately determine whether Thursday’s judgement stands.
But whatever the outcome, the controversy has already reinforced Sani’s warning about the dangers of underestimating established interests within political parties.
His observation that one individual can bring down an entire political structure now resonates across the ADC.
For Atiku and his allies, the immediate battle is to rescue their electoral tickets. The larger political challenge is to explain how a coalition assembled to challenge President Tinubu in 2027 allowed a dispute with one of its own party stakeholders to threaten its entire electoral machinery.
Discover more from KTH Daily
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
