The warning came from Kayode Oladele, a former member of the House of Representatives and legal practitioner, who said the ruling could have serious implications for decisions taken by the disputed party leadership, particularly the conduct of presidential primaries and the nomination of candidates for the 2027 general election.
The judgment was delivered on Thursday by Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja. According to Oladele, its consequences go beyond the positions held by Senator David Mark and other national officers whose leadership was challenged. The central legal issue, he argued, is whether officials whose authority has been declared unlawful by a competent court can validly conduct party primaries and nominate candidates for an election.
Oladele said the situation should also be considered alongside the Supreme Court’s decision in Zenith Labour Party v. Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), delivered on September 24, 2026. Although the two cases involve different legal issues, he noted that both highlight the importance of political parties complying with electoral laws and statutory requirements when selecting candidates.
He recalled repeatedly warning the ADC about the risks of allowing its leadership dispute to remain unresolved, particularly if the party continued conducting its affairs under a structure whose legitimacy was being contested.
“I have consistently warned the ADC about the grave legal consequences of its internal leadership crisis and the danger of conducting party affairs through a disputed leadership structure. Unfortunately, the party now faces the very legal complications I have repeatedly cautioned against,” he said.
Explaining the connection between the two court decisions, Oladele said the Supreme Court had upheld the constitutionality of Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026. These provisions establish binding requirements for political parties, particularly in relation to membership registers and the procedures for nominating candidates.
He identified one important aspect of the Supreme Court ruling as its distinction between an individual’s personal qualification to contest an election and the legal eligibility of the political party sponsoring that candidate.
According to him, the apex court made it clear that failure to meet certain statutory requirements could affect a party’s ability to field candidates, regardless of whether the individuals seeking election were personally qualified.
“In other words, a candidate’s personal qualification cannot independently overcome a statutory disability affecting the sponsoring party,” Oladele explained.
He said this principle was relevant to the ADC’s current crisis because questions surrounding the authority of the party officials who conducted its nomination process could affect the validity of the candidates who emerged from those exercises.
However, Oladele stressed that the issues in the two cases should not be treated as identical. While the Zenith Labour Party dispute concerned compliance with statutory requirements on membership registers, the ADC matter centres on the legality of its leadership and whether those in control had the authority to exercise the party’s nomination powers.
He cautioned against suggesting that the Supreme Court had already settled the ADC dispute, noting that the apex court addressed the constitutionality of specific provisions of the Electoral Act, while the Federal High Court ruled on the legality of the party’s leadership.
Nevertheless, he maintained that both cases demonstrate how legal shortcomings within a political party can have serious consequences for its candidates and electoral ambitions.
Oladele warned that if the judgment against the ADC leadership is upheld on appeal, the validity of any primaries conducted under the disputed leadership could become a major subject of legal challenge.
“That is why Atiku Abubakar may ultimately not appear on the presidential ballot if the judgment of the Federal High Court is sustained on appeal,” he said.
He also rejected the suggestion that the publication of Atiku’s name by the Independent National Electoral Commission automatically guarantees his participation in the 2027 presidential election.
According to Oladele, INEC’s publication of a candidate’s name does not prevent a court from later examining the legality of the process through which the candidate was nominated. He said the commission remains bound by the Constitution, the Electoral Act and applicable court orders.
“INEC’s publication of a candidate’s name does not confer immunity against a subsequent judicial determination invalidating the nomination process. The Commission is bound to act in accordance with the Constitution, the Electoral Act and applicable judicial orders,” he stated.
The former lawmaker urged political parties to pay greater attention to internal democracy, legitimate leadership structures and strict compliance with electoral laws. He warned that unresolved leadership disputes could weaken a party’s chances at the polls and place the political future of its candidates at risk.
He further argued that party leadership arrangements should not be treated as mere administrative issues, as questions about the legitimacy of those in charge could affect the validity of major decisions taken on behalf of the organisation.
Oladele advised the ADC to confront the legal implications of the judgment rather than rely on political declarations to settle issues that require legal resolution.
He maintained that Atiku’s political experience, public profile and personal eligibility would not automatically protect his candidacy if the process through which the ADC nominated him is eventually declared invalid by the courts.
