By Alex Ter Adum, PhD
The attempt by COPDEM to resurrect and publish on 4 September 2026 the Court of Appeal judgment delivered on 13 July 2026 as though it were a fresh judicial development against the African Democratic Congress (ADC) is, at best, a misleading resyndication and, at worst, a calculated attempt to create panic among ADC members and supporters.
There is no new judgment.
The judgment was delivered on 13 July 2026, nearly two months before COPDEM republished the story. It was a 2–1 decision in Appeal No. CA/ABJ/CV/608/2026, with Justices Okon Abang and Donatus Okorowo in the majority and Justice Abba Mohammed dissenting.
More importantly, everyone should read what the Court actually decided, not what COPDEM would like Nigerians to believe it decided.
THE COURT DID NOT NULLIFY THE ADC NOMINATION PRIMARIES
The judgment concerned the legality of the ward, LGA and state congresses organised by committees appointed by the David Mark-led caretaker/interim leadership and the authority to interfere with the tenure and functions of existing elected state executive committees.
The Court held that those congresses, and the national convention conducted in April 2026 in defiance of the subsisting court order issued by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court, Abuja, were nullities.
But there is a fundamental juridical distinction which no amount of political propaganda can erase:
A party congress that elects party executives is not the same thing as a nomination primary that elects or selects candidates for public office.
The former concerns party administration and the election of party officers.
The latter concerns the nomination of candidates to contest general elections.
The Court of Appeal did not expressly nullify the ADC direct nomination primaries or the candidates produced through them.
Indeed, immediately after the judgment, the ADC expressly stated that the judgment concerning the party congresses had no effect on the direct primaries through which the party’s candidates emerged and announced that it was appealing the decision.
Therefore, anyone claiming that the 13 July judgment automatically cancelled the ADC nomination primaries should identify the specific paragraph of the judgment containing that order.
They cannot, because no such express order exists.
That is why the COPDEM narrative is a classic non sequitur.
From the proposition:
“The Court questioned the authority of the Mark-led structure to organise certain executive congresses”
it does not logically follow that:
“Therefore every nomination primary conducted by the same NWC is automatically null and void.”
That conclusion simply does not follow from the premise.
THERE IS ANOTHER JUDGMENT COPDEM’S NARRATIVE CONVENIENTLY IGNORES.
On 2 July 2026, Justice M. S. Liman of the Federal High Court, Abuja, delivered judgment in FHC/ABJ/CS/1637/2025 concerning the legitimacy of the David Mark-led national leadership.
The court dismissed the challenge and resolved the substantive questions in favour of the Mark-led leadership. It held that the emergence of Senator David Mark and Rauf Aregbesola complied with the ADC Constitution, the Electoral Act and the party’s rules. The judgment also directed INEC to recognise the Mark-led national officers.
That judgment has not been overturned.
That fact cannot simply be wished away by a political publication.
Thus, as matters presently stand, there is a subsisting Federal High Court judgment affirming the Mark-led national leadership and directing INEC to recognise it.
And this is not merely a theoretical question.
The subsequent electoral process proceeded on that basis, with INEC’s candidate-nomination process involving the Mark-led structure. The very existence of this judicial and administrative record makes it reckless to suggest that COPDEM’s 4 September republication has somehow produced a new legal reality.
WHO, THEN, IS COPDEM?
This question is relevant not because political affiliation automatically makes an argument false, but because the political background of a purportedly nonpartisan organisation is legitimate context when assessing politically consequential reporting.
COPDEM describes itself as the Coalition for the Protection of Democracy, a pro-democracy and nonpartisan political action group. Its own founding account says it was initiated in 2023 by Nigerians at home and in the diaspora. Its August 2023 communiqué identifies Danjuma Garba Musa as its spokesperson.
We should, however, be precise: I have not found reliable public documentary evidence establishing the exact CAC incorporation date, registered proprietors or trustees of COPDEM. It would therefore be irresponsible to allege that it is secretly owned or controlled by any particular politician.
But COPDEM’s own published record establishes its political trajectory.
Its current membership-registration page directs people who register with COPDEM to proceed to register on the National Democratic Congress (NDC) website.
That is not speculation. It is what COPDEM itself presently publishes.
Consequently, while COPDEM may describe itself as nonpartisan, its current organisational interface is openly connected to the NDC.
That does not, by itself, prove that every COPDEM publication is false.
But it does mean that its politically sensitive reporting on the ADC should be subjected to particularly careful independent scrutiny, rather than accepted as an impartial judicial bulletin.
THE POLITICAL CONTEXT CANNOT BE IGNORED.
The relevant question is therefore not:
“Does COPDEM have a political interest?”
The more appropriate question is:
“Does COPDEM’s documented political trajectory give readers a reason to independently verify its claims concerning a rival opposition platform?”
The answer is plainly yes.
COPDEM’s own materials establish its involvement in opposition politics and its present connection with the NDC ecosystem. That is legitimate context when it publishes material capable of affecting the fortunes of competing political formations.
But the decisive evidence remains the judgment itself.
And the judgment says what it says.
EVEN THE COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT IS NOT THE LAST WORD
The 13 July decision was a split 2–1 judgment.
Justice Abba Mohammed dissented and took the view that the dispute was essentially an internal affair of a political party and that the Federal High Court ought not to have assumed jurisdiction.
The ADC has appealed the decision.
Therefore, the judicial controversy remains alive before the Supreme Court.
And even if—purely for argument—the Supreme Court ultimately affirms the majority decision, the judgment must still be interpreted according to the actual question submitted to and determined by the courts.
That question concerns the authority to organise ward, LGA and state congresses for the election of party executives, and the legal consequences of conducting those exercises in defiance of a subsisting court order.
It does not automatically answer a completely different question:
Who, under the ADC Constitution and applicable electoral law, possesses the authority to organise nomination primaries for the selection of candidates to contest general elections?
Those are separate legal questions.
DO NOT LET PROPAGANDA BECOME LAW.
The danger in COPDEM’s 4 September publication is therefore not that it reports a judgment that does not exist.
The judgment exists.
The problem is that an old judgment is being repackaged as new news, while its legal effect is being rhetorically enlarged beyond what the Court actually decided.
That is the mischief.
The Court of Appeal delivered its judgment on 13 July.
COPDEM published its resyndication on 4 September.
Nothing happened between those dates that transformed the judgment into a new judgment.
A judgment does not become new because somebody republishes it six weeks later.
And a judgment concerning executive congresses does not automatically become a judgment nullifying candidate nomination primaries simply because both exercises involve the same political party.
That is not how legal reasoning works.
It is a non sequitur.
OUR MESSAGE TO ADC MEMBERS
We therefore urge all ADC members, supporters and aspirants to remain calm and refuse to be stampeded by recycled headlines.
Read the judgment.
Read the orders.
Read the ratio.
Distinguish executive congresses from nomination primaries.
And above all, distinguish what the Court actually decided from what political commentators want Nigerians to believe it decided.
The Supreme Court will ultimately pronounce on the issues before it.
Until then, nobody should manufacture a judicial pronouncement that the Court did not make.
COPDEM is entitled to its political views.
It is entitled to support whatever political project it chooses.
But it is not entitled to convert an old Court of Appeal judgment into a new judicial event by republishing it nearly two months later, nor to turn a judgment on party executive congresses into an automatic nullification of nomination primaries when the Court did not expressly make such an order.
That is not legal analysis. It is political messaging dressed up as legal news.
So, to every ADC member:
DO NOT PANIC.
DO NOT BE DISTRACTED.
DO NOT ALLOW RECYCLED PROPAGANDA TO BECOME YOUR LAW.
The courts will decide the law.
Not COPDEM.
Not political propagandists.
Not sensational headlines.
THE JUDGMENT OF 13 JULY IS OLD NEWS. THE APPEAL IS PENDING. THE NOMINATION PRIMARIES WERE NOT EXPRESSLY NULLIFIED. AND THE LAW MUST BE ALLOWED TO SPEAK FOR ITSELF.
Alex Ter Adum, PhD
-AA MOVEMENT FOR A BETTER NIGERIA-
