A Federal High Court in Abuja has rejected a resignation letter allegedly signed by factional National Chairman of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Nafiu Bala, ruling that the disputed document was not established as authentic.
The court held that the signature on the letter, which the party relied on to argue that Bala had voluntarily resigned as deputy national chairman, differed materially from his signatures on other documents tendered in the case.
In a judgment delivered on November 5, 2026, Justice Peter Lifu also nullified the emergence of the David Mark-led caretaker leadership, declaring its actions and decisions, including the nomination of former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar as the party’s presidential candidate for the 2027 election, invalid.
Bala had approached the court to challenge the emergence of Mark, a former Senate President, and Rauf Aregbesola, former Osun State governor, as national chairman and national secretary of the ADC, respectively.
Their emergence followed the party’s 99th National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting held on July 29, 2025, after the resignation of its former national chairman, Ralph Nwosu.
Bala told the court that he was elected deputy national chairman on October 12, 2022, for a four-year tenure scheduled to end on October 11, 2026.
He maintained that he was the only elected member of the party’s National Working Committee (NWC) who had not resigned following the departure of other members.
He argued that vacancies in the NWC could only be filled through democratic elections involving delegates, in accordance with the party’s constitution, the 1999 Constitution and the Electoral Act 2022.
The plaintiff alleged that Mark, Aregbesola and 49 others were appointed and ratified as members of the NWC at the July 29 meeting without being elected.
He also challenged the notice convening the meeting, arguing that it did not contain the required agenda or the names of members of the committee responsible for organising it.
Bala further accused the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) of failing to discharge its statutory responsibilities by monitoring the meeting, issuing a report and subsequently recognising the new leadership.
A major issue before the court was a resignation letter dated May 17, 2025, which the ADC tendered as Exhibit ADC 1, alongside a forwarding letter marked Exhibit ADC 2.
Bala denied signing the documents, describing the disputed signature as a forged and poor imitation of his authentic signature.
The ADC and other defendants, however, maintained that he had voluntarily resigned through the letter and therefore lacked the legal standing to challenge subsequent decisions of the party.
They argued that the party’s constitution empowered the NEC to dissolve the NWC, waive certain membership requirements and appoint or elect national officers between national conventions.
The defendants also insisted that the July 29 meeting was properly convened, monitored by INEC and conducted in accordance with the party’s constitution.
They further argued that the dispute concerned the internal affairs of a political party and was therefore not subject to judicial intervention.
Aregbesola separately challenged Bala’s membership status, alleging that he had failed to renew his membership for more than six months. He also filed a counterclaim seeking N850 million in costs.
However, in resolving the dispute over the resignation letter, Justice Lifu held that the certification of a document did not automatically establish that the person named in it had personally signed it.
The judge said his comparison of the signature on the disputed letter with those on Bala’s witness statements revealed significant differences.
“The fact that a document is certified, however, does not, by that fact alone, settle a genuine dispute as to whether the person named in it actually signed it,” Lifu held.
He said he was not satisfied that the disputed letter represented Bala’s genuine act and rejected it as reliable evidence of his resignation.
“Accordingly, Exhibit ADC 1 is hereby held not to constitute a valid or established resignation letter of the Plaintiff, and the Defendants cannot rely on it to establish that he relinquished his office before the events giving rise to this suit. I so hold,” the judge ruled.
On the legality of the Mark-led leadership, Lifu held that the defendants failed to establish that the process through which the new officers emerged complied with the requirement for democratic elections under Section 82(3) of the Electoral Act 2022.
He said there was no satisfactory evidence that party members or duly elected delegates were given the opportunity to participate in an election and vote for candidates of their choice.
The judge also rejected the argument that INEC’s monitoring of the meeting validated the emergence of the new leadership.
“The fact that INEC received notice of the meeting and monitored its proceedings does not fill this evidential gap. Notice to the Commission and democratic election are separate requirements, and proof of the former is not proof of the latter,” he said.
Lifu further held that the powers granted to the NEC under the ADC constitution could not override constitutional and statutory provisions requiring democratic elections for political party executive positions.
The court subsequently granted Bala’s substantive reliefs and nullified the relevant actions and decisions arising from the July 29, 2025 NEC meeting.
The judgment throws the ADC’s leadership structure and decisions taken under the Mark-led administration into uncertainty, including the party’s preparations for the 2027 general elections.
see this here https://toast-wallet.net/