Presidential candidate of the NDC, Peter Obi, has said that he does not contest the Federal High Court judgment nullifying the African Democratic Congress (ADC) leadership, but warned that its timing, three months to the 2027 election, undermines democracy.
In a statement on Thursday, the presidential candidate of the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) said he received news of the ruling with “shock,” describing it as “unsettling and surprising,” even as he affirmed his respect for the judiciary.
The Federal High Court in Abuja, presided over by Justice Peter Lifu, nullified the emergence of the ADC National Chairman, former Senate President David Mark, and invalidated all decisions taken under his leadership, including the process that produced former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar as the party’s presidential candidate for the 2027 election.
The court also affected the emergence of former Minister of Interior, Rauf Aregbesola, as the party’s National Secretary and the nominations of other candidates presented by the ADC.
The ruling followed a suit filed by Nafiu Bala Gombe, a former ADC National Deputy Chairman (North-East), who challenged the process through which the Mark-led caretaker committee assumed control of the party following the resignation of former National Chairman Ralph Nwosu . Justice Lifu upheld the plaintiff’s claims and granted the reliefs sought.
Obi drew a clear distinction between the judgment and its timing. “I do not challenge the ruling of the court. The court of law is constituted to determine disputes according to the law. My concern is that three months before a general election, it is in the public interest to have certainty. It is not good to have too many uncertainties about candidates and parties a few weeks before a presidential election”, he said.
He argued that the instability surrounding opposition parties appeared engineered, linking the ADC crisis to what he described as similar tactics deployed against him during his time in the Labour Party. He alleged the ruling party was working to close down civic space for robust campaigns and was also behind violence against opposition rallies .
“One mark of democracy is that at all times, it is voters and not courts that choose leaders,” Obi said. “I trust in the judiciary. As a public officer, I have shown deep respect for the judiciary. I appeal that we protect the integrity of democracy by not undermining the free and fair choice of candidates” .
He warned that the sustenance of democracy in Nigeria, amid encroaching military rule in West Africa, should strengthen the resolve to protect opposition politics rather than stamp out opposition parties. He reiterated his pledge to ensure, as President, that opposition parties remain stable and candidates are not persecuted out of electoral contests .
“This is a time to strengthen our democracy by allowing the opposition to thrive,” Obi said, concluding: “A new Nigeria is POssible”.
The ADC rejected the judgment in full, with its National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, accusing the ruling All Progressives Congress of attempting to “set Nigeria on fire” through the courts. The party said it would challenge the ruling at the Court of Appeal and petition the National Judicial Council over the conduct of the case.
The ADC also cited a subsisting judgment by Justice Musa Liman of the same Federal High Court, delivered on July 2, 2026, which had affirmed the legitimacy of the Mark-led leadership, arguing that a court of coordinate jurisdiction cannot nullify another’s ruling .
Atiku Abubakar, the affected ADC presidential candidate, described the judgment as a “calculated attempt to weaken” his campaign, alleging the timing was part of a strategy to diminish his support in the North following a massive rally in Sokoto barely 24 hours earlier . He also questioned the legal basis of the ruling, citing the earlier Liman judgment .
Minister of Aviation and Aerospace Development, Festus Keyamo, however, welcomed the judgment, describing the sacked Mark-led leadership as an “illegal band of marauders.” He argued that no group could take over a political party without following constitutional procedures and dismissed concerns that the ruling threatened democracy.
Discussion about this post