The African Democratic Congress (ADC) is currently grappling with an evolving crisis. What began as internal friction has snowballed into a full-scale leadership dispute, threatening the party’s status as a viable third force ahead of the 2027 general elections. With uncertainty deepening by the day, the party leadership is racing against time.
On Tuesday, despite daunting legal and logistical hurdles, the party proceeded with its National Convention in Abuja. In doing so, the leadership is attempting to construct a stable structure for the political heavyweights leading the coalition while simultaneously preventing the party from being hijacked by competing interests.
However, the situation has created a tense standoff with the regulatory authorities. By refusing to recognise the David Mark-led leadership pending judicial resolution, INEC has effectively frozen the ADC’s ability to conduct official business—from nominating candidates to receiving statutory grants.
The instability facing the ADC stems from INEC’s recent decision to withdraw recognition from rival factions, leaving the party in a legal and administrative limbo. The central question remains: Will INEC eventually accept the National Convention as the supreme authority, or will the commission stick to the letter of the law regarding pre-existing court orders?
With this standoff, the party’s fate now rests on whether the High Court validates the convention or strikes it down as an act of contempt. If the leadership fails to satisfy judicial requirements by the end of this month, the ADC risks entering the 2027 season as a ghost party—a platform boasting big names but possessing no legal legs to stand on.
To some analysts, the decision to hold a National Convention despite a standing court order was a classic all-in one move. By defying the court, the leadership is betting that a successful convention will create a fait accompli that INEC cannot ignore. However, if the courts view this as contempt, it could trigger the wholesale disqualification of the party’s upcoming activities.
Already, the festering crisis has split the party into three distinct camps. On one side is the David Mark faction, backed by high-profile defectors, including former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, Senator Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso, and former Governor Peter Obi. They claim legitimacy through a July 2025 NEC resolution.
On the flipside is the Nafiu Bala group, which leans on the previous party structure, insisting it remains the authentic leadership while challenging the legality of the new arrivals. Positioned between these two rival camps are state chairmen who have rejected both factions and called for a new interim management committee—representing a rebellion within a rebellion.
Compounding these divisions is INEC’s refusal to recognise any factional leader. Without a recognised chairman, the ADC cannot access its share of joint party funds or submit official candidate lists. This looming uncertainty is no longer just a threat; it is the current reality.
The ADC leadership is currently caught in a perfect storm. They must resolve the legal battle for the chairmanship before the INEC deadline for party primaries. Failure to do so will result in the loss of the opportunity to field candidates for the general elections, likely leading to a mass exodus of the very heavyweights recruited in 2025.
The appeal filed by David Mark challenges the March 12 Court of Appeal judgment and seeks to restrain INEC from altering the party’s leadership structure while the case is pending. A five-member panel, led by Justice Mohammed Garba, has fixed April 22 to hear the appeal over the leadership tussle with Nafiu Bala. The court granted an accelerated hearing due to the urgency of the matter, ordering all parties to complete their briefs by April 20. Given the April 23 INEC deadline for candidates, a split ruling or further delay could effectively lock the ADC out of the upcoming electoral cycle.
In a strategic move to neutralise the old guard, the convention ratified a new constitution, serving as a formal vote of confidence from the delegates. By doing so, the leadership is attempting to “move the goalposts.” A new document can technically vacate previous offices and define new terms, potentially rendering current legal challenges against the leadership’s tenure obsolete by replacing the rules they allegedly broke.
The leadership intends to argue in court that the party has self-corrected through its highest decision-making body, the National Convention. However, this move could deepen the crisis. Since the convention was held in defiance of a specific court injunction, the ratification of the new constitution could be declared null and void, leaving the party operating under a document the law does not recognise.
According to renowned constitutional lawyer, Dr Tunji Abayomi, the retroactive application of a new constitution is a legal minefield. Under the law, internal party rules are generally prospective. If a court finds that the leadership’s actions in 2025 violated the then-active constitution, ratifying a new one in 2026 does not provide immunity. Furthermore, the doctrine of Lis Pendens suggests that parties should not take actions that overreach the judicial process while a matter is sub judice. If the court eventually rules that the convention itself was illegal, every act performed there becomes a nullity.