NEWS
Court Declares Nafiu Bala’s ADC Resignation Letter Fictitious, Nullifies David Mark-Led Leadership, Atiku’s 2027 Presidential Nomination
Court Declares Nafiu Bala’s ADC Resignation Letter Fictitious, Nullifies David Mark-Led Leadership, Atiku’s 2027 Presidential Nomination
A Federal High Court in Abuja has dealt a major legal blow to the leadership crisis rocking the African Democratic Congress (ADC), declaring fictitious a controversial resignation letter allegedly signed by former Deputy National Chairman, Nafiu Bala, and invalidating decisions taken by the David Mark-led caretaker committee.
In a judgment delivered on November 5, 2026, Justice Peter Lifu ruled that the disputed resignation letter, which the ADC relied upon to establish that Bala had voluntarily relinquished his position, did not constitute valid proof of his resignation.
The court also declared the emergence of former Senate President David Mark as National Chairman and former Osun State Governor Rauf Aregbesola as National Secretary invalid, holding that the process through which they assumed leadership positions had not been shown to comply with the mandatory provisions of the Electoral Act 2022.
The judgment further invalidated decisions arising from the party’s controversial caretaker leadership arrangements, including the nomination of former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar as the ADC’s presidential candidate for the 2027 general election.
Every second brings Nigerians closer to exercising their democratic right and shaping the future of our nation.
Exercise your democratic right responsibly, peacefully and lawfully.
The legal battle followed a suit instituted by Bala, who challenged the emergence of Mark, Aregbesola and 49 other individuals as members of the party’s National Working Committee (NWC) during its 99th National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting held on July 29, 2025.
Channel
The meeting was convened following the resignation of Ralph Nwosu, the party’s former National Chairman.
Bala told the court that he was elected Deputy National Chairman on October 12, 2022, for a four-year tenure scheduled to expire on October 11, 2026. He maintained that he remained the only elected member of the party’s National Working Committee who had not resigned following the departure of other members.
According to him, the vacancies created by the resignations could not be filled through arbitrary appointments or political arrangements but only through a democratic electoral process involving properly constituted delegates, as stipulated by the ADC constitution, the 1999 Constitution and the Electoral Act 2022.
He accused the party’s leadership of circumventing these requirements by appointing Mark, Aregbesola and 49 others into the NWC and subsequently ratifying their positions without conducting an election.
The plaintiff also questioned the validity of the notice convening the July 29 NEC meeting, arguing that it failed to contain the required agenda and the names of members of the convention or meeting committee.
He further accused the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) of failing to discharge its statutory responsibilities by attending the meeting, issuing a report and subsequently recognising the leadership that emerged from the disputed process.
A major issue in the case was the authenticity of a resignation letter dated May 17, 2025, which the ADC tendered as Exhibit ADC 1, alongside a forwarding letter identified as Exhibit ADC 2.
Bala vehemently denied signing the documents, insisting that the signature attributed to him was a “forged and poor imitation” of his authentic signature.
He argued that the disputed documents could not legally establish that he had voluntarily resigned from office and maintained that the conflicting evidence required proper examination through oral testimony under the Evidence Act.
However, the ADC and other defendants opposed his claims, insisting that Bala had voluntarily resigned through a letter dated May 17, 2025, and consequently lacked the legal standing to challenge subsequent decisions of the party.
The defendants maintained that the ADC constitution vested the NEC with delegated powers to dissolve the National Working Committee, waive certain membership requirements and appoint or elect national officers between national conventions.
They relied on NEC resolutions passed on March 27 and May 15, 2025, as well as notices communicated to INEC ahead of the July 29 meeting, arguing that these decisions provided the legal foundation for dissolving the existing NWC and establishing a new leadership structure.
The defendants also insisted that the 99th NEC meeting was properly convened, monitored by INEC and conducted in accordance with the party’s internal procedures.
They further argued that the dispute concerned the internal affairs of a political party and was therefore not a matter the court should entertain.
In challenging Bala’s locus standi, they maintained that he had voluntarily resigned and failed to exhaust the party’s internal dispute-resolution mechanisms before approaching the court.
Aregbesola separately questioned Bala’s membership status, alleging that he had failed to renew his party membership for more than six months. He also filed a counter-claim seeking declaratory reliefs and N850 million in costs.
However, Justice Lifu rejected the defendants’ reliance on the controversial resignation letter, stressing that the fact that a document had been certified did not automatically establish that the person named in it actually signed it.
In a significant finding, the judge compared the signature on Exhibit ADC 1 with Bala’s signatures appearing on various witness statements on oath submitted before the court and found substantial differences.
“The fact that a document is certified, however, does not, by that fact alone, settle a genuine dispute as to whether the person named in it actually signed it,” the judge held.
“I have carefully compared the signature appearing on Exhibit ADC 1, purportedly the Plaintiff’s resignation letter, with the signatures appearing on the various witness statements on oath deposed to by the Plaintiff in this suit.
“Upon a close examination and comparison of these signatures in line with the decisions of the courts earlier provided, I find that they are materially different and cannot reasonably be regarded as one and the same signature.
“In the circumstances, and having considered the disputed document alongside the signatures on the Plaintiff’s witness statements on oath, I am not satisfied that Exhibit ADC 1 represents the genuine act of the Plaintiff.
“I therefore reject it as reliable proof that the Plaintiff voluntarily resigned from his position as Deputy National Chairman of the 1st Defendant.
“Accordingly, Exhibit ADC 1 is hereby held not to constitute a valid or established resignation letter of the Plaintiff, and the Defendants cannot rely on it to establish that he relinquished his office before the events giving rise to this suit. I so hold.”
Beyond the disputed resignation letter, the court also examined whether the emergence of the Mark-led leadership complied with the legal requirements governing the election of political party executives.
Justice Lifu held that the defendants failed to establish that the process satisfied the mandatory democratic election requirements under Section 82(3) of the Electoral Act 2022.
According to the judge, there was no satisfactory evidence demonstrating that party members or duly elected delegates were given the opportunity to participate in an election and vote for candidates of their choice before the new leadership emerged.
The court particularly dismissed the argument that INEC’s participation in the July 29 meeting automatically validated the process, explaining that the commission’s monitoring role could not replace the statutory requirement for a democratic election.
“The fact that INEC received notice of the meeting and monitored its proceedings does not fill this evidential gap. Notice to the Commission and democratic election are separate requirements, and proof of the former is not proof of the latter,” he said.
The judge further ruled that the general powers conferred on the ADC’s National Executive Committee by the party’s constitution could not override constitutional and statutory provisions regulating the election of political party executives and governing bodies.
He consequently held that the emergence of Mark and Aregbesola as national officers during the July 29, 2025 meeting had not been established as lawful.
In granting Bala’s substantive reliefs, the court declared the relevant actions and decisions arising from the disputed meeting null and void.
It also restrained INEC from recognising or dealing with Mark, Aregbesola and the members of the National Working Committee they represented as officers of the African Democratic Congress.
The judgment represents a significant development in the ADC’s leadership crisis, with potentially far-reaching implications for the party’s organisational structure and its preparations for the 2027 general election, particularly the political arrangements surrounding its presidential nomination of Atiku Abubakar.
DO YOU WANT TO WHISTLEBLOW, REPORT FRAUD, THEFT OR INJUSTICE OR INTIMIDATION? SEND US YOUR STORY/REPORT TO NEWSDESK@MEDIATODAY.NG
