Atiku’s nomination faces appellate test after court invalidates ADC leadership
An Abuja court’s ruling reaches beyond party offices to nominations made under David Mark’s leadership. The ADC says it has appealed, but no stay has been verified and INEC says it has not yet acted on the judgment.
Atiku Abubakar’s presidential nomination is under a court judgment invalidating the African Democratic Congress leadership that selected him, with the party seeking appellate relief before Nigeria’s 16 January 2027 election. The ruling is more than an internal leadership setback, but reports that the electoral commission has already removed him from its candidate portal are contradicted by the commission’s account.
Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja delivered the judgment on Thursday, 5 November. Channels Television and Premium Times reported that he declared the David Mark-led caretaker leadership illegal and invalidated actions taken under it, including the primary that produced Atiku. Premium Times reported an instruction to the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, not to recognise the disputed leadership’s decisions, including candidate nominations.
The immediate distinction is between a judgment affecting the nomination, an appeal seeking to reverse it, and the electoral commission’s implementation. None can safely be substituted for the others. An appeal is not a victory, while a name remaining on an administrative portal does not establish that the court’s ruling has ceased to operate.
What the leadership case decided
The claimant, former ADC deputy national chairman for the North-East Nafiu Bala Gombe, challenged the process by which Mark and national secretary Rauf Aregbesola assumed office. He argued that the departure of former chairman Ralph Nwosu entitled him to succeed to the leadership, according to both outlets’ court reporting.
Lifu upheld the challenge and granted relief against the disputed leadership. Premium Times reported that the order reached decisions associated with the party’s 27 July 2025 National Executive Committee meeting and subsequent nominations. The judgment therefore concerns the institutional authority used to select candidates, rather than a finding that Atiku personally committed an offence.
Its potential reach extends beyond the presidential contest. Candidates relying on the same leadership’s authority also face uncertainty, according to the court reports. That makes the appeal consequential for the ADC’s wider electoral organisation, not simply the future of one politician.
The complete certified judgment was not available among the documents examined for this article. Descriptions of its operative effect here rely on the court reporting, not on a claim to have independently interpreted the full order.
An appeal filed, not a stay granted
The ADC presidential campaign council said on Friday that it had appealed, applied for a stay of execution and notified INEC. ARISE News reported that it obtained copies of the notice of appeal and stay motion signed by Senior Advocate of Nigeria Shaibu Enejoh Aruwa. Premium Times separately reported the campaign statement but said it had not independently obtained those documents.
Both accounts say the stay application remained undetermined. Filing an appeal or requesting a stay does not itself suspend the lower court’s judgment, the reports explain. No subsequent order granting a stay was verified in the sources examined by Saturday, 7 November, and no appellate hearing date was established.
The party’s request that INEC wait is therefore a litigant’s position, not evidence that the commission has been judicially restrained from acting. Conversely, the absence of verified relief should not be turned into a prediction that the appeal will fail or that the ballot’s final composition is settled.
INEC national commissioner Mohammed Kudu Haruna told Daily Trust on Friday that the commission had not received the certified judgment and had not discussed it. The newspaper’s check found Atiku and running mate Rotimi Amaechi still listed on the portal. That is a dated account of administrative status, not a guarantee about the commission’s next decision.
Competing political and legal claims
The Mark-led ADC rejected the ruling through a statement by publicity secretary Bolaji Abdullahi. It cited an earlier decision by Justice Musa Liman in a separate case brought by legislator Leke Abejide and argued that the judgments conflicted. The relationship between those decisions is an issue for the appellate process; the party’s interpretation is not an appellate finding.
Atiku said in a 6 November statement that he remained in the race and would continue campaigning. The ADC and Atiku also accused the governing All Progressives Congress of interference. Premium Times reported that no evidence linking the APC to the judgment was offered in those statements. APC spokesperson Felix Morka denied involvement, describing the litigation as an internal ADC dispute.
The timetable leaves limited room for uncertainty. INEC’s current official calendar lists the presidential and National Assembly elections for Saturday, 16 January 2027, and governorship and state assembly elections for 6 February. The January presidential date is verified against the commission’s live calendar, rather than inferred from an older election announcement.
The next decisions matter more than assurances
For voters, the outstanding questions are concrete: whether a court grants interim relief, what the appellate court decides about the leadership and nominations, and how INEC gives effect to the operative orders. Neither a campaign’s promise of ballot access nor a partisan declaration of permanent exclusion answers them.
The dispute tests whether the ADC can preserve a lawful route into the election while defending the authority of the leadership that assembled its challenge. Until the relevant orders and commission decisions are clear, reporting should distinguish a nomination invalidated at first instance from an irreversibly settled exclusion.
