I have carefully examined the judgment reportedly delivered by Justice Peter Odo Lifu of the Federal High Court, Abuja, on 5 November 2026, in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025, instituted by Nafiu Bala Gombe against the African Democratic Congress (ADC), INEC and others.
Although I have not yet examined the Certified True Copy of the judgment, my considered legal opinion is that the consequential nullification of Alhaji Atiku Abubakar’s presidential nomination and those of other ADC candidates cannot stand because it raises serious questions of jurisdiction, constitutional compliance, fair hearing, judicial consistency and the permissible limits of judicial powers.
First, the chronology of the proceedings raises a fundamental question of competence. The suit was instituted in September 2025, long before the ADC conducted the presidential and other primary elections that produced its candidates for the 2027 general elections.
At the commencement of the action, Atiku Abubakar had not emerged as the presidential candidate, neither had the other candidates been nominated. How could the validity of nominations that did not exist constitute an existing cause of action at the institution of the proceedings?
The law is settled that a court is bound by the parties’ pleadings and the reliefs claimed. In Ekpenyong v. Nyong (1975) 2 SC 71, Attorney-General of the Federation v. A.I.C. Ltd (2000) 10 NWLR (Pt. 675) 293 and Bello v. Eweka (1981) 1 SC 101, the Supreme Court affirmed that a court cannot grant reliefs not claimed or determine matters outside the case properly presented before it.
A general prayer seeking to invalidate actions of a disputed party leadership cannot automatically confer jurisdiction to determine the validity of subsequent nominations involving distinct legal interests and causes of action.
Secondly, the doctrine of issue estoppel and the finality of judicial proceedings cannot be ignored.
The ADC leadership controversy had previously been subjected to judicial determination in the proceedings instituted by Hon. Leke Abejide.
On 2 July 2026, Justice Musa Liman of the Federal High Court, Abuja, dismissed Abejide’s challenge and resolved the substantive questions concerning the emergence of Senator David Mark and Rauf Aregbesola in their favour, affirming that the leadership transition complied with the ADC Constitution and applicable electoral laws.
The Supreme Court’s decision of 30 April 2026 must also be understood in its proper context: it set aside the preservatory status quo order and remitted the leadership dispute for further proceedings. The subsequent substantive determination by Justice Liman is therefore particularly relevant.
The applicable legal principles are well established. In Fadiora v. Gbadebo (1978) 3 SC 219 , the Supreme Court recognised that where an issue has been distinctly raised and finally determined between parties, neither party may subsequently reopen or contradict that determination.
In Ladega v. Durosimi (1978) 3 SC 91, the Court explained the operation of issue estoppel. Similarly, in Ajiboye v. Ishola (2006) 6 NWLR (Pt. 977) 97, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that a party cannot relitigate an issue previously determined with finality between the same parties or their privies. (note that Hon. Leke Abejide was a privy of Nafiu Bala Gombe)
In Ezenwuihe Ikoku v. Reuben Ekeukwu (1995) 7 NWLR (Pt. 410) 637 , the Supreme Court explained that issue estoppel arises where an issue has been directly and finally determined in an earlier proceeding. The principle is not merely procedural convenience; it protects the authority of judicial decisions, prevents contradictory judgments and preserves public confidence in the administration of justice.
Granted, Leke Abejide was the plaintiff in the earlier proceedings, whereas Nafiu Bala Gombe instituted the present action. Their identities must not be conflated. Nevertheless, the difference in the names of the plaintiffs does not automatically extinguish issue estoppel where the requisite identity of parties or privies, issues and subject matter is established.
The court must examine the actual issues determined, the legal interests represented and the relationship between the parties.
In S.O. Ntuks & Ors. v. Nigerian Ports Authority (2007) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1051) 392, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that a final decision of a competent court is binding on the parties and their privies in respect of matters conclusively determined. The doctrine of res judicata is intended to prevent endless litigation over matters already adjudicated.
It would therefore be legally unacceptable for a subsequent court to disregard an earlier subsisting judicial determination of the same substantive leadership questions without first addressing its binding effect, the distinction between the causes of action and the requirements of issue estoppel. Judicial decisions are not disposable opinions that succeeding courts may disregard at convenience.
Thirdly, the constitutional requirement of fair hearing is fundamental.
Section 36(1) of the Constitution guarantees every person the right to fair hearing in the determination of civil rights and obligations. Atiku Abubakar and the other affected candidates possess individual legal interests in their nominations. They cannot have those interests extinguished without a proper opportunity to defend their respective positions.
In Green v. Green (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 61) 480, the Supreme Court emphasised the importance of joining necessary parties whose interests would be directly affected by the determination of a dispute. The presence of ADC and INEC as defendants cannot automatically substitute for the independent fair-hearing rights of every candidate whose nomination is subsequently nullified.
Fourthly, Section 285(9) and (14) of the Constitution must be given their proper effect.
Section 285(9) prescribes a 14-day limitation period for instituting pre-election matters, while Section 285(14) defines the categories of disputes that qualify as pre-election matters. A leadership dispute instituted in 2025 cannot simply be transformed into an unrestricted challenge to nominations conducted subsequently without satisfying the applicable constitutional requirements, including any necessary amendment of pleadings and joinder of affected parties.
Finally, even assuming, without conceding, that the Mark-led leadership suffered any legal defect, it does not follow that every subsequent decision, transaction and nomination undertaken under that leadership automatically becomes void. The legal consequences must be examined against the relevant constitutional provisions, the Electoral Act, the party constitution, the doctrine of substantial compliance and applicable judicial authorities.
My conclusion is unequivocal: a court cannot manufacture a cause of action, disregard the finality of subsisting judicial determinations, or extinguish the legal rights of persons without affording them fair hearing.
The blanket nullification of Atiku Abubakar’s nomination and those of other ADC candidates is consequently legally untenable and demands urgent appellate intervention to clear the judicial over reach of Justice Lifu.
It is important to emphasize that judicial power is a constitutional responsibility, not an unrestricted licence. The authority of the judiciary derives not merely from its power to make orders but from its obligation to exercise that power within the boundaries of jurisdiction, due process, precedent and the Constitution.
The ADC must therefore quickly exercise its right of appeal, and the appellate courts and the National Judicial Council (NJC) must therefore scrutinise this decision with the seriousness it deserves and reprimand Justice Lifu for his consistent overeach on political cases involving the opposition.
No political party, candidate or citizen should be subjected to the consequences of such brazen judicial overreach without consequences.
The rule of law must prevail over judicial overreach, and the finality of judicial decisions must prevail over endless litigation. And Justice Lifu must be called to order.
Alex Ter Adum, PhD
DDG THE NARRATIVE FORCE
