WHAT WE ALL NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE ADC LEADERSHIP TRANSITION, THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS, THE POSITION OF THE ADC CONSTITUTION AND WHY NAFIU BALA GOMBE’S CLAIM TO THE NATIONAL CHAIRMANSHIP REMAINS LEGALLY UNTENABLE DESPITE JUSTICE LIFU’S JUDGMENT
By Alex Ter Adum, PhD
The chronology of the ADC leadership transition is clear and must not be distorted. Understanding it requires separating the initial resignations of the former party leadership, the political announcement of the coalition platform, the constitutional decisions of the Party’s competent organs and the subsequent judicial proceedings.
The resignations of 17 and 18 May 2025: The commencement of the constitutional transition
An important fact that must not be overlooked is that the leadership transition did not begin on 2 July 2025. Chief Ralph Nwosu and members of the legacy National Working Committee had already tendered their resignation notices on 17 and 18 May 2025, respectively.
These were not intended as immediate resignations. They were notices given in anticipation of the proposed political transition and in compliance with Article 17(3) of the ADC Constitution, which provides:
“Any officer elected into the Executive Committee at any level may resign his office by giving a 30-day notice in writing to the appropriate Executive Committee…”
The constitutional significance of this provision is fundamental. The Constitution prescribes a 30-day written notice before resignation takes effect. It does not contemplate that an officer must immediately abandon his responsibilities upon submitting a resignation notice.
Consequently, the notices submitted on 17 and 18 May 2025 were intended to mature into effective resignations upon the expiration of the constitutionally prescribed 30-day period, approximately 16 and 17 June 2025, respectively, subject to proof of proper communication and the applicable computation of time.
This means that by 2 July 2025, when the coalition platform was publicly unveiled at the Shehu Musa Yar’Adua Centre in Abuja, the constitutional notice period had already elapsed.
This is a crucial point that must be properly understood. The 2 July event was not the commencement of the resignation process. It was the public political announcement of a transition whose constitutional groundwork had commenced in May.
It is therefore misleading to suggest that the former leadership suddenly abandoned its offices on 2 July or that the proposed transition was conceived and executed without regard to the ADC Constitution.
The resignation notices were the first stage; the coalition unveiling was the political announcement; and the subsequent NEC proceedings constituted the formal institutional implementation of the transition.
The coalition unveiling of 2 July 2025
At the coalition-unveiling stakeholders’ meeting on 2 July 2025, Chief Ralph Nwosu publicly announced his decision and that of the entire legacy NWC without exception to step aside and introduced Senator David Mark, Chairman of the Coalition, as the proposed successor, subject to the requisite institutional approval by the Party.
This was the political unveiling of the new leadership arrangement. It must be distinguished from the formal exercise of constitutional authority by the Party’s National Executive Committee.
The significance of the event is that it demonstrated that the transition was neither an overnight arrangement nor an attempt to dispossess the existing leadership without prior notice. It followed the resignation notices issued in May and the expiration of the prescribed constitutional 30 days notice period.
The distinction between political announcement and constitutional implementation is essential to understanding the entire dispute.
The NEC meeting of 29 July 2025: Formal institutional implementation
Following the coalition unveiling, notice of the proposed NEC meeting was given to INEC on 4 July 2025.
On 29 July 2025, the Party held its 99th NEC meeting at Chelsea Hotel Abuja, at which the leadership transition was formally considered and approved. The NEC constituted the Mark-led Caretaker Committee, ratified the leadership arrangement and formally dissolved the previous NWC. This meeting was monitored by INEC following the notice which was given to the Commission on the 4 July 2025 pursuant to section 82(1) of the Electoral Act. The monitoring report of INEC was deposed on oath and filled in court in the proceedings before Justice Liman and Lifu. The former had regard to it in arriving at his decision of 2 July 2026 while the latter ignored it in his decision of 5 November 2026.
The Party also relied on Articles 19(12)(vii) and 19(14) of its Constitution, which confer on NEC the authority to exercise the powers and perform the functions of the National Convention pending the next National Convention.
The 29 July meeting was therefore the formal institutional stage of the transition, following the earlier resignation notices and political unveiling.
It is consequently misleading to isolate 29 July and suggest that the former leadership simply woke up that day and transferred the Party to Senator David Mark without any preceding constitutional process.
Indeed, the formal dissolution of the previous NWC on 29 July must be understood against the background of the 17 & 18 May resignation notices. The fact that the Party subsequently formally dissolved the former NWC does not, by itself, erase the earlier resignation process or establish that the officers’ notices were legally ineffective.
The critical questions are whether the notices complied with Article 17(3), whether they were properly communicated, and whether the subsequent NEC resolutions fell within the constitutional powers of that organ. All these constitutional requirements were duly satisfied, thereby affirming that the resignations were valid, effective and entirely consistent with Article 17(3) of the ADC Constitution.
The critical constitutional question now is: How did Nafiu Bala Gombe automatically become National Chairman?
The central question is: By what specific provision of the ADC Constitution did Nafiu Bala Gombe automatically become National Chairman following Chief Ralph Nwosu’s resignation?
Article 2 establishes the supremacy of the Party Constitution. Every officer and organ of the Party is bound by it.
Article 14(A)(1)(i) vests the National Chairman with the authority to preside over NEC and NWC meetings.
Article 14(A)(2)(i) provides for the Deputy National Chairman from the Chairman’s zone to preside in his absence, followed by the other Deputy National Chairman.
However, there is a fundamental distinction between presiding over meetings in the Chairman’s absence and automatically succeeding to the substantive office of National Chairman.
The former is an administrative arrangement. It does not necessarily confer an independent, permanent or automatic right of succession.
More importantly, Article 17(4) provides that where a vacancy occurs in a Party office, the appropriate Executive Committee shall appoint a substitute from the zone of the former officeholder pending an election at the next Congress or Convention.
The provision contemplates an institutional decision by the appropriate Executive Committee. It does not establish automatic succession by personal declaration or self-appointment by someone who is not even from the zone of the officer whose office has become vacant.
Therefore, Bala must establish the precise constitutional basis upon which he claims that Nwosu’s resignation automatically vested him with the substantive chairmanship, without the intervention of the appropriate Executive Committee.
His position cannot be sustained merely by relying on the fact that he was one of the six Deputy National Chairmen of the party not even in the first line of succession.
The question of Bala’s own resignation
There is also the important evidential question concerning Bala’s resignation from the former NWC.
Although Bala alleges that the resignation letter attributed to him was forged, that allegation, which raises a serious question of fact, was never substantiated by any forensic evidence or other credible proof. More significantly, the then Deputy National Secretary of the legacy ADC, who personally witnessed Bala sign the resignation letter, deposed on oath affirming its authenticity and validity. The resignation was therefore duly executed, communicated and became effective in accordance with Article 17(3) of the ADC Constitution. Bala’s subsequent repudiation of the document, in the face of this sworn corroborative evidence, raises a fundamental question as to the credibility and timing of his objection, which appears to be an afterthought designed to evade the legal consequences of his own voluntary act.
Bala must therefore explain how he could subsequently assert an uninterrupted entitlement to membership and leadership of the very committee from which he had voluntarily resigned. The original resignation document, its date, the person to whom it was addressed, the circumstances of its execution and its terms are all matters of objective evidence, not subjects for political conjecture or selective constitutional interpretation.
The legal position cannot be manipulated to suit convenience. A person cannot invoke the resignations of other officers to establish a vacancy, rely on the constitutional consequences of those resignations to advance a claim to leadership, and simultaneously disown the legal consequences of his own resignation. Having regard to the corroborating sworn evidence and the absence of credible evidence impeaching the resignation, Bala cannot approbate and reprobate on the same question. His resignation must be accorded its full constitutional effect under Article 17(3), and the subsequent constitutional processes must be assessed on that basis.
Justice Peter Lifu’s judgment and the questions it leaves for appellate determination
The judgment delivered by Justice Peter Lifu on 5 November 2026, if allowed to stand unchallenged, would fundamentally alter the immediate legal, constitutional and administrative landscape of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), with far-reaching consequences for its leadership, internal governance and preparations for the 2027 general elections.
The court nullified the Mark-led leadership arrangement, set aside decisions taken by the disputed National Executive Committee (NEC) and National Working Committee (NWC), directed INEC to recognise Nafiu Bala as the only recognised NEC member, and invalidated the party primaries conducted under the disputed leadership.
The implications are profound. Beyond the immediate disruption of the party’s leadership structure, the judgment threatens to undermine the ADC’s electoral preparations, campaign organisation and participation in the 2027 general elections.
These consequential orders must therefore be urgently subjected to appellate scrutiny, with appropriate applications for a stay of execution pending the determination of the appeal, and ultimately set aside if found to be legally unsustainable.
Several fundamental constitutional, statutory and evidential questions therefore arise and demand rigorous appellate examination:
- Whether Article 17(4) supports automatic succession to the chairmanship or requires an institutional decision by the appropriate Executive Committee.
- Whether Article 14’s provision concerning the presiding role of a Deputy National Chairman can properly be interpreted as an automatic transfer of the substantive office.
- Whether the NEC possessed the constitutional authority exercised at its 29 July meeting under Articles 19(12)(vii) and 19(14).
- Whether the notice, procedure, attendance and resolutions of the 29 July NEC meeting satisfied the ADC Constitution and applicable provisions of the Electoral Act.
- Whether the reliefs granted by the court were supported by the pleadings, evidence and applicable law.
These are not peripheral questions. They go to the very foundation of the dispute and the validity of the conclusions reached by the trial court.
The ultimate point: A judgment is not a substitute for constitutional interpretation
The most important distinction is between the immediate legal consequences of a court judgment and the correctness of the constitutional interpretation upon which that judgment rests.
Justice Lifu’s judgment must be obeyed, but it is not beyond appellate scrutiny. Neither does it transform every assertion made by the plaintiff into an immutable constitutional truth.
The ADC Constitution must be interpreted as a whole, with proper regard to the sequence of events: the resignation notices of 17 and 18 May, the expiration of the 30-day constitutional notice period, the political transition announced on 2 July, the notice to INEC on 4 July and the formal institutional decisions taken by NEC on 29 July 2025.
The attempt to portray the Mark-led transition as an arbitrary seizure of the Party, while ignoring the May resignation notices and their constitutional significance, is an incomplete and misleading account of the events.
The May notices are particularly important because they demonstrate that the transition was not conceived as an immediate abandonment of office or an arbitrary transfer of power. The former officers initiated the process in accordance with the ADC Constitution’s prescribed notice period, after which the political and institutional stages of the transition followed.
Ultimately, Nafiu Bala Gombe must establish more than the fact that he was a Deputy National Chairman. He must demonstrate the specific constitutional provision that vested him with an automatic right to the substantive National Chairmanship, notwithstanding the resignation notices, the subsequent institutional processes and the decisions of the Party’s competent organs.
That is the constitutional question. It is also the central question that the appellate court must carefully examine.
The controversy should not be determined by political sentiment, selective chronology or the mere invocation of a judicial judgment. It must be determined by the ADC Constitution, the documentary evidence and the applicable principles of Nigerian law.
Alex Ter Adum, PhD
National Coordinator,
AA MOVEMENT FOR NIGERIA
