Understanding the legal battle over ADC leadership crisis, resignation and presidential nomination

The leadership crisis rocking the African Democratic Congress (ADC) raises fundamental questions about internal democracy, party administration, judicial intervention and the validity of decisions taken by disputed party officials. At the centre of the controversy is whether politicians can assume leadership positions without complying with the procedures prescribed by a party’s constitution and Nigerian electoral laws, and whether decisions taken by such officials can remain legally binding.

The reported judgment of Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court, Abuja, provides an opportunity to examine the legal principles governing political party leadership disputes and their implications for the ADC’s leadership structure and its presidential nomination process ahead of the 2027 general elections.

Constitutional requirements for internal party democracy

Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) requires every political party to provide for the periodic democratic election of its principal officers and members of its executive committees or governing bodies. Section 223(2)(a) further stipulates that such elections must take place at regular intervals not exceeding four years.

This constitutional requirement means that political parties cannot arbitrarily appoint or retain national officers without regard to their constitutions and prescribed electoral procedures. Where a party constitution requires a convention, congress or another democratic process for electing national officers, those provisions must be respected.

The implication for the ADC dispute is that the process through which the Mark-led National Working Committee (NWC) emerged must be assessed against the party’s constitution and the applicable electoral laws.

Filling vacant party positions under the electoral act

At the time the ADC leadership dispute arose in July 2025, the applicable legislation was the Electoral Act 2022. Section 82(3) required elections into party executive committees and other governing bodies, including elections to fill vacant positions, to be conducted democratically, allowing party members or duly elected delegates to vote for candidates of their choice.

Consequently, the resignation of a party chairman or other national officers does not automatically empower remaining officials to appoint replacements without following the prescribed procedures. The party must comply with its constitution and applicable electoral legislation.

Section 82(1) of the 2022 Act also required political parties to give INEC at least 21 days’ notice of conventions, congresses and meetings organised for the election of executive officers or nomination of candidates.

These provisions are relevant to determining whether the process that produced the disputed ADC leadership satisfied the statutory requirements.

Can courts intervene in internal party disputes?

The general position of Nigerian law is that political parties are voluntary associations, and courts should ordinarily avoid interfering in their internal affairs.

In Onuoha v Okafor (1983) 2 SCNLR 244, the Supreme Court established an important principle limiting judicial interference in the internal administration of political parties.

The principle was further considered in Anyanwu v Emmanuel (2025), where the Supreme Court reaffirmed that disputes concerning party membership, leadership and administration are generally non-justiciable unless a recognised constitutional or statutory basis for judicial intervention exists.

The question in the ADC case, therefore, is whether the claimant’s action concerned an ordinary internal party disagreement or involved enforceable constitutional and statutory obligations. The court’s jurisdiction, the claimant’s locus standi and the specific reliefs sought are critical to answering that question.

The electoral act 2026 and restrictions on judicial intervention

An important legislative development is the Electoral Act 2026, which commenced on 18 February 2026 and repealed the 2022 Act.

Section 83(5) of the new legislation provides that no Nigerian court shall entertain jurisdiction over any suit or matter pertaining to the internal affairs of a political party.

Section 83(6) further introduces restrictions on interim and interlocutory injunctions in proceedings brought contrary to this provision. It also prescribes accelerated hearing and financial penalties, including minimum costs of ₦10 million against the lawyer who instituted the action and the plaintiff or applicant.

However, the timing of the ADC proceedings is legally significant. The suit reportedly commenced in 2025, before the new Act came into force. Section 154 repeals the former legislation, but Section 6 of the Interpretation Act generally preserves accrued rights and proceedings arising under repealed laws.

It would therefore be incorrect to assume that the 2026 legislation automatically invalidates proceedings instituted under the 2022 Act. Whether the new restrictions apply to pending proceedings requires consideration of the savings provisions, the date the cause of action arose and the applicable principles of statutory interpretation.

Does the Deputy Chairman automatically become national Chairman?

Nigerian law does not establish a universal rule that a deputy chairman automatically becomes the substantive national chairman whenever the incumbent resigns. The answer depends primarily on the constitution of the political party concerned.

Party constitutions ordinarily prescribe the procedure for resignation, declaration of vacancies, succession, appointment of acting officers and election of substantive replacements.

In the ADC dispute, the relevant question is whether its constitution authorised Gombe to assume the chairmanship following the resignation of Ralph Nwosu.