The leadership crisis rocking the African Democratic Congress is heading to the Supreme Court, but the primary conflict may extend beyond legal arguments. As the opposition coalition struggles over the control of its internal structures, time is running out to convince Nigerians of its readiness for the 2027 general elections. By the time the apex court finally resolves the dispute within the party, the legal questions may be fully answered, but the political damage might already be irreversible. This irony currently confronts the most prominent opposition coalition in the country.
For months, discussions surrounding the political party have centered on court orders, rival factions, congresses, and constitutions, rather than policies, campaigns, or governance. Every judicial ruling has generated a subsequent appeal, prolonging the prevailing uncertainty, which can be as damaging as an electoral defeat in politics. Consequently, the judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal last Monday signifies much more than a mere struggle between the factions led by David Mark and Dumebi Kachikwu. It serves as a critical test of whether an opposition coalition can sustain its electoral viability while battling for internal control.
In a split two-to-one decision, the appellate court upheld a prior Federal High Court judgment that restrained the Independent National Electoral Commission from recognizing state congresses conducted by committees appointed by the national working committee led by David Mark. The Court of Appeal agreed that under the constitution of the party, the authority to conduct state congresses belongs to elected state executive committees, not the national working committee. The court also affirmed that the congresses and subsequent national convention organized by the leadership under Mark amounted to a nullity due to the alleged violation of an earlier court order. However, the Mark faction has approached the Supreme Court, maintaining that the verdict did not remove its leadership or invalidate the candidates whose names had already been uploaded onto the portal of the electoral umpire. Thus, while the legal dispute remains far from over, the political consequences are just unfolding.
Speaking on a television program, a constitutional lawyer, Liborous Oshoma, stripped away the political colorations and reduced the dispute to a single decisive question. He stated, “They must present the facts showing that the caretaker committee (appointed by Mark-led NWC) was subsequently suspended and did not conduct the congresses or primaries,” According to the legal expert, the burden of proof rests entirely on the party to demonstrate that the disputed congresses were organized by lawful party structures instead of the caretaker committee. If the party fails to establish this fact, Oshoma warned that the implications would transcend state executives. He cautioned, “Yes, the presidential ticket is threatened by this court judgment… The truth will be laid bare, but time might not be on their side,” This observation highlights that time, rather than just the law, has become the greatest adversary of the opposition.
While the legal arguments appear relatively straightforward, the political ramifications remain complex. The national working committee led by David Mark currently enjoys official recognition from the electoral commission for the candidates already uploaded to the commission's portal, which includes the presidential ticket of Atiku Abubakar and Rotimi Amaechi, alongside hundreds of legislative candidates. The faction led by Kachikwu, despite claiming legitimacy over the state structures of the party, does not control those submissions. This situation creates a severe practical dilemma. If the Supreme Court eventually upholds the judgment of the Appeal Court, the faction recognized as controlling the party structure will still face the reality that a rival faction submitted candidates to the electoral commission months earlier. Conversely, if the apex court overturns the judgment, the coalition led by Mark may retain legal authority but will be forced to repair months of internal distrust and organizational paralysis. Either way, rebuilding public confidence could prove far more difficult than securing a favorable court verdict.
Opposition politicians have frequently alleged that the ruling All Progressives Congress stands to benefit from keeping rival parties trapped in endless litigation. While these allegations remain unverified political claims with no concrete evidence suggesting that the judiciary or the electoral body acts under government direction, one fact remains clear. Lengthy legal disputes drain valuable energy, polarize party elites, discourage financial donors, and confuse loyal supporters. Whether driven by deliberate political engineering or self-inflicted organizational failures, the final outcome remains identical, creating an opposition that spends more time in court than on the campaign trail. Ironically, the courts may eventually clear every legal impediment, but if public trust has already been eroded, a legal victory might arrive too late to yield electoral success.
Nigerian political history offers several precedents that should make political parties wary of unresolved internal disputes. The prolonged leadership crisis between Ali Modu Sheriff and Ahmed Makarfi within the Peoples Democratic Party consumed critical time before judicial clarity finally emerged ahead of the 2019 presidential election. Similarly, the failure of the All Progressives Congress to conduct valid primary elections in Zamfara State cost the party an election it had effectively won after the Supreme Court nullified all its victories in 2019. These historical events demonstrate that political parties rarely lose simply because their opponents are stronger; they often lose because internal feuds overshadow the election itself, which is the exact danger facing the African Democratic Congress.
Analysts have outlined three possible outcomes for the ongoing crisis. The first scenario involves the Supreme Court affirming the judgment of the Appeal Court, which could raise complex questions regarding the disputed congresses and trigger fresh political negotiations over party structures. The second scenario is that the apex court overturns the judgment, thereby restoring complete legal certainty to the national working committee led by Mark and allowing the coalition to focus entirely on its political campaigns. The third, and potentially most consequential outcome, is a prolonged delay. If the final judicial pronouncement comes too close to critical electoral deadlines, whichever faction emerges victorious may inherit a political party that has lost precious time, momentum, and public trust. For ordinary citizens, the issue goes beyond the fate of a single opposition party, as democracy relies heavily on credible alternatives. If opposition parties spend months litigating over control instead of persuading voters, the quality of electoral competition itself becomes the greatest casualty. As the Supreme Court prepares to hear the case, the legal battle continues, but the overarching political question remains whether a party can win in court after losing the confidence of the electorate.
0 Comments