The ADC’s leadership dispute is progressing to the Supreme Court, but the more significant challenge may transcend legal proceedings. As the opposition coalition grapples with internal control, the window to demonstrate its readiness for the 2027 elections is narrowing.
This presents a peculiar irony for Nigeria’s leading opposition bloc.
For months, discussions surrounding the ADC have centered on court injunctions, competing factions, party congresses, and constitutional interpretations, rather than on policy initiatives, campaign strategies, or governance. Each judicial decision has led to further appeals, perpetuating an atmosphere of uncertainty. In politics, such ambiguity can be as detrimental as an outright loss.
Consequently, last Monday’s Court of Appeal ruling carries implications far beyond the specific factions led by David Mark or Dumebi Kachikwu. It has become a crucial test of whether an opposition coalition can maintain its electoral
The Ruling That Shifted the Narrative
In a divided decision, the Court of Appeal upheld a prior Federal High Court judgment that prohibited the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognizing state congresses convened by committees appointed by the David Mark-led National Working Committee (NWC).
The appellate court concurred that, according to the ADC’s constitution, elected state executive committees, not a national working committee, hold the authority to conduct state congresses. It also confirmed that the congresses and subsequent national convention organized by the David Mark leadership were invalid due to alleged violations of an earlier court order.
The Mark faction has appealed to the Supreme Court, asserting that the judgment did not oust its leadership nor invalidate candidates already submitted to the INEC portal.
Legally, the dispute is far from resolved. Politically, however, it may be just the beginning.
The Supreme Court’s True Determination
During Arise TV’s The Morning Show, constitutional lawyer Liborous Oshoma distilled the complex political maneuvering into a single, critical question.
“They must present the facts showing that the caretaker committee (appointed by the Mark-led NWC) was subsequently suspended and did not conduct the congresses or primaries,” he stated.
Oshoma explained that the onus is now on the ADC to demonstrate that the contested congresses were organized by legitimate party structures, not by the caretaker committee.
He cautioned that failure to do so could have repercussions extending beyond state-level leadership.
“Yes, the presidential ticket is threatened by this court judgment… The truth will be laid bare, but time might not be on their side,” he warned.
This final observation might be the most critical. Time, not solely legal precedent, has emerged as the opposition’s most formidable challenge.
While the legal arguments are relatively straightforward, the political ramifications are considerably more complex.
The David Mark NWC currently has INEC recognition for candidates already uploaded to the commission’s portal, including the presidential ticket of Atiku Abubakar and Rotimi Amaechi, along with numerous legislative candidates. The Kachikwu faction, despite claiming legitimacy over the party’s state structures, does not control these submissions.
This creates a practical quandary. If the Supreme Court ultimately upholds the Appeal Court’s decision, the faction recognized as controlling the party structure might still face the reality that another faction submitted candidates to INEC months prior.
Conversely, if the apex court overturns the judgment, the Mark-led coalition might retain legal authority but would still need to mend months of internal distrust and organizational stagnation. In either scenario, rebuilding confidence could prove more challenging than winning the legal case.
The Unspoken Political Realities
Opposition politicians have frequently alleged that the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) benefits from keeping rival parties entangled in protracted legal battles. These claims remain unsubstantiated allegations; there is no verified evidence suggesting the judiciary or INEC is acting under government direction.
However, one undeniable fact is that prolonged legal disputes drain renfuse the electorate
Whether stemming from strategic political maneuvering or internal organizational failures, the outcome often appears similar: an opposition force dedicating more time to court proceedings than to campaigning.
Ironically, the courts may eventually clear all legal hurdles. Yet, if public trust has already eroded, a legal victory might arrive too late to translate into electoral success.
Nigerian political history offers ample examples to caution any political party against unresolved internal conflicts.
The protracted leadership struggle within the PDP between Sheriff and Makarfi consumed valuable time before judicial clarity was eventually achieved before the 2019 presidential election. Similarly, the APC’s inability to conduct valid primaries in Zamfara resulted in the forfeiture of an election it had effectively won, after the Supreme Court nullified its victories in 2019.
The recurring lesson is clear. Political parties seldom lose solely due to the strength of their opponents; sometimes, internal disputes overshadow the electoral contest itself. This is the peril currently confronting the ADC.
The first possibility is that the Supreme Court affirms the Appeal Court’s ruling. This could trigger complex questions regarding disputed congresses and necessitate fresh political negotiations over party structures.
A second scenario involves the Supreme Court overturning the judgment, thereby restoring legal certainty to the Mark-led NWC and enabling the coalition to focus on campaigning.
The third, and potentially most impactful, outcome is a delay. If the final judgment is rendered too close to critical electoral deadlines, whichever faction prevails might inherit a party that has lost significant time, momentum, and public confidence.
For the average Nigerian citizen, this issue extends beyond a single opposition party. Democracy relies not only on competitive elections but also on the presence of credible political alternatives.
If opposition parties spend the crucial months leading up to an election litigating over party control instead of convincing voters of their suitability for power, the most significant casualty may not be the ADC itself. It could be the very quality of electoral competition.
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear the case, the legal contest will continue. However, the broader political question already looms over Nigeria’s democratic landscape: Can a party secure a legal victory after losing the confidence of the electorate?
