Headline

Parties’ Deregistration: ADC, Not NDC, is the Target

Published

3 weeks ago

June 29, 2026

Eric

By Eric Elezuo

As the 2027 presidential election draws closer, intrigues, manipulations and maneuvers have continued to be the order of the day as political parties engage in one gimmick or another to outdo and undo one another.

While some are playing politics of numbers and conviction, others are engaging tendencies that tend to question the status quo and established principles under which genuine democracy is formed. As a matter of fact, fingers have been pointed at the President Bola Tinubu-led Federal government as the brain behind all machinations that have attempted to derail multi-party democracy, and institute a one-party state, which is alien to the Nigerian democratic roots. This is as a result of the constant imbroglio that has consistently engulf almost all the major political parties in the country.

Fresh facts have however, emerged to prove that every act of frustration thrown at the opposition has been indirectly aimed at the main opposition party, the African Democratic Congress (ADC), and its presidential candidate, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar.

According to reliable sources, the recent deregistration of parties, especially the Nigerian Democratic Congress (NDC), was actually targeted at the ADC.

Recall that the Federal High Court in Lokoja, Kogi State, on June, 26, set aside its earlier judgement directing the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to register the NDC as a political party. A ruling that put a question mark on the eligibility of the party presenting candidates in the forthcoming 2027 elections

The presiding judge, Isah Dashen, held that all relevant parties must be heard before any substantive decision can be made in the matter.

The court upheld the application filed by a certain organization, the Peace Movement Party (PMP), ruling that the party was a necessary party to the suit.

According to the judge, the earlier judgement was constitutionally defective as it was delivered without hearing from all interested parties.

He declared that such an omission rendered the entire process null and void.

Mr Dashen further ruled that the status quo be restored to what it was before the December 10, 2025 judgement, pending the determination of the substantive suit.

He also observed that certain material facts were suppressed in the earlier proceedings, which justified the decision to set aside the judgment.

Consequently, the court ordered that the substantive suit should begin afresh, with the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the PMP and the NDC as parties to the case.

According to NAN’s reports, the applicant’s lawyer, Chikezie Ekeocha, told journalists that the PMP approached the court after discovering that NDC’s registration was based on a logo it had previously submitted to INEC before the commencement of the suit.

According to Mr Ekeocha, the court agreed that the applicant’s rights had been affected and consequently vacated the earlier judgement.

“The court has ordered all parties to return to the position they occupied before the judgment of 10 December 2025, and directed the claimants to join all necessary parties to ensure the issues in dispute are effectually and completely determined,” he said.

He explained that the implication of the ruling is that every action taken by INEC in compliance with the now-vacated judgment stands reversed.

“The recognition of the NDC, the issuance of its certificate of registration, its inclusion in INEC’s records, and any appearance on ballot papers arising from that judgement must be withdrawn pending the final determination of the substantive suit,” Mr Ekeocha stated.

He, however, clarified that the substantive case remains before the court and has not been decided.

“The matter has not been concluded. The court merely set aside its previous judgment and directed that the party whose interests were affected be joined so that all sides can be heard before a fresh decision is reached.”

Mr Ekeocha also dismissed suggestions that the court merely ordered parties to maintain the status quo, insisting that the ruling specifically directed a restoration of the position that existed before the 10 December 2025 judgement.

The ruling effectively returns the dispute over the registration of the NDC to the Federal High Court for a fresh hearing, with all relevant parties expected to participate before a new determination is made.

It would also be recalled that a few weeks earlier, the Federal High Court in Abuja, had ordered the deregistration of five political parties including the African Democratic Congress (ADC). The others are Action People’s Party (APP), Action Alliance (AA), Zenith Labour Party (ZLP) and Accord Party.

However, on June 16, the Court of Appeal in Abuja halted the enforcement of the judgement, ruling that it violated its earlier ruling staying proceedings before the Federal High Court.

While INEC awaits the release of the Certified True Copy (CTC) of the judgment to deregister the NDC, the NDC has reacted, rejecting the judgment as travesty of justice.

Lending credence to the notion that the President Tinubu-led administration is basically targeting the establishment of the ADC as a party, and the candidature of its presidential flagbearer, former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar, who is also the presidential candidate of the ADC, has stated categorically that there are plots to prevent the party from participating in the 2027 general election.

Atiku’s position is stated in a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu on Monday, notifying the public that he had received credible information suggesting that political and legal manoeuvres were being deployed against the ADC, stressing that the persecution that has been thrown towards the NDC was a clear distraction as the main target is the ADC.

Atiku alleged that anti-democratic elements within the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) were working to ensure that the ADC is excluded from the ballot.

“We are fully aware of their plots. While they seek to sow confusion within the opposition, we know their real target is the ADC because it represents the most credible alternative,” he said.

Atiku called on Nigerians to reject any attempt to determine which opposition parties participate in the election.

“We therefore call on all Nigerians — not just ADC members and supporters — to rise in defense of democracy and reject any attempt by the ruling party to cherry-pick which opposition parties are permitted to participate in the next general election,” he said.

“Our message to the APC and the hooded men plotting in dark chambers is simple: you may conspire, but you will not succeed.

“If the APC is truly confident in its popularity, why is it so terrified of the ADC?”

He said he hoped the information available to him would not materialise but argued that recent political developments made such concerns difficult to dismiss.

“The pattern has become all too familiar. First, institutions that ought to be neutral are drawn into partisan contests,” he said.

“Then, frivolous litigations suddenly gain unusual momentum. Administrative powers are selectively deployed.

“Political pressure is mounted behind closed doors. Before long, democracy itself becomes the casualty.”

Atiku alleged that the ruling party has focused more on weakening the opposition than addressing the country’s economic and security challenges.

“The obsession with silencing the opposition has become so consuming that governance itself has taken a back seat,” he said.

“At a time when Nigerians are battling hunger, inflation, unemployment, insecurity, and collapsing purchasing power, those entrusted with public office appear preoccupied with political survival rather than national survival.”

Nigerians recall that ever since the official rejuvenation of the ADC in June/July of 2025, where the duo of Senator David Mark and Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola emerged as the party’s chairman and secretary respectively, the party has not known moments of peaceful coexistence as litigations from corners unknown have sprang up in a bid to destabilize the party and deprive it of the opportunity of featuring on the ballot paper come 2027.

ADC, as a child of circumstance emerged from the rumbles of the litigation-ridden former main opposition party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), where two factions have consistently remelained at loggerheads over leadership. While the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, who is working assiduously to ensure the reelection of Bola Tinubu, leads one faction, Oyo State Governor, Seyi Makinde, who became a defacto head, leads the other faction. In all, PDP appeared to have no direction, forcing many of its members to jump ship, thereby birthing the ADC, and to a large extent, the NDC, which is presenting Peter Obi as the presidential candidate, with former Kano governor, Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso, as his running mate.

Sources also informed The Boss that the hasty reading and passage of the Electoral Act 2026 by the Godswill Akpabio-led National Assembly, with many great areas left unattended to, were also part of the grand design to deprive the ADC the constitutional rights of presenting candidates for the 2027 elections.

But both the ADC and the NDC has vowed that they would follow every process to ensure that the crackdown on opposition parties by the Tinubu administration comes to an abrupt end.

But beyond the intrigues, Nigerians are gearing up to participate fully in the forthcoming election with cross sections of the population either hailing Tinubu for his policies or knocking him for the untold hardship in the land.

Headline

Mary Habila’s Death: Tinubu Has Failed Comprehensively, Disgracefully – Atiku

Published

2 days ago

July 16, 2026

Eric

By Eric Elezuo

A former Vice President, and Presidential Candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Atiku Abubakar, has lashed out at the administration of President Bola Tinubu over its prolonged silence on the death of a medical practitioner, Mary Habila, who died at the residence of the Minister of Works, Dave Umahi.

Atiku condemned the inability of the Tinubu-led government from making any pronouncements or instituting any form of probe to unravel the cause of death since the sad incident occurred on June 27, 2026, saying the administration has failed comprehensively and disgracefully.

Atiku’s remarks are contained in a statement he released on his social platforms endorsed with his regular AA.

While not casting any blame on any particular person or entity, Atiku maintained that condolences are not enough,but must be accompanied by thorough investigation into the circumstances that led to the death of the 26 years old medical practitioner in her prime.

The former Vice President therefore called for a “credible, independent, and transparent investigation” to establish the truth, noting that “it is the refusal of the Federal Government to guarantee such an investigation that constitutes the scandal before us”.

The statement in full:

I have followed with deep sorrow and mounting concern the reports surrounding the death of Miss Mary Habila, a 26-year-old Nigerian from Nok, Southern Kaduna, who died on June 27, 2026, within the private residence of the Honourable Minister of Works, Senator David Umahi, in Uburu, Ebonyi State.

First, I extend my heartfelt condolences to the Habila family. No family should have to mourn a daughter taken in the prime of her life while also fighting simply to learn the truth of how she died.

But condolences are not enough. Nigerians deserve answers, and it is on this score that the Tinubu administration has failed, comprehensively and disgracefully.

Consider the facts that are not in dispute. A young woman died in the residence of a serving Federal Minister. For nearly two weeks, neither the Minister, nor the police, nor any arm of government said a word to the Nigerian people. It took the courage of Sahara Reporters to bring this death into public view. Three weeks after her death, no autopsy has been performed. No cause of death has been established. The investigation remains domiciled in the very state where the Minister served two terms as Governor and where his influence is beyond question.

And through all of this, silence from the Presidency. Silence from the Federal Executive Council. Silence from the Inspector-General of Police. Silence from the National Assembly. Not one word. Not one directive. Not one gesture to assure Nigerians that the life of Mary Habila matters to this government.

Instead, the Minister has been permitted to manage the narrative of a death that occurred under his own roof: issuing statements through his personal aides, deploying his private lawyers to correspond with the police, and continuing his official duties as though nothing has happened, while civil society groups, youth organisations, and the family’s own community cry out for an independent inquiry.

Let me be clear: I make no pronouncement on anyone’s guilt or innocence. That is precisely the point. Only a credible, independent, and transparent investigation can establish the truth, and it is the refusal of the Federal Government to guarantee such an investigation that constitutes the scandal before us.

A government’s first duty is the protection of life. Where a life is lost in circumstances touching a high official of state, the burden on government to act transparently is at its heaviest.

President Tinubu’s administration has instead treated this tragedy as an inconvenience to be waited out. If the death of a young Nigerian woman in a Minister’s residence cannot stir this government to act, then Nigerians must ask: whose life, exactly, does this government value?

I therefore demand the following: One, President Bola Tinubu must direct the Honourable Minister of Works to step aside immediately, pending the conclusion of investigations. This is not a punishment; it is the minimum standard of public accountability in any serious democracy. No official under this cloud should preside over a federal ministry as though it were business as usual.

Two, the Inspector-General of Police must immediately transfer the investigation from the Ebonyi State Command to Force Headquarters, with the involvement of independent forensic experts. No investigation conducted in the shadow of the Minister’s home-state influence can command public confidence.

Three, a full, independent, and internationally credible autopsy must be conducted without further delay, with the findings made public. The stalemate over the post-mortem, three weeks after this young woman’s death is an indictment of every institution involved.

Four, the family of Mary Habila must be protected from any pressure, inducement, or intimidation, and must be guaranteed unfettered access to the facts of their daughter’s death.

The measure of a nation is how it responds when the powerful are touched by tragedy and the powerless demand truth. Mary Habila was somebody’s daughter, somebody’s sister, a young professional with her life ahead of her. She was a Nigerian. Her death must not be reduced to a footnote of political convenience.

Nigeria will work again, but only when the life of every Nigerian counts, and when no one, however highly placed, stands beyond the reach of accountability.

May the soul of Mary Habila rest in peace. May her family find justice. -AA

Headline

Atiku Accuses INEC of Aiding Tinubu’s Alleged One-party State Agenda

Published

4 days ago

July 14, 2026

Eric

Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has accused the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) of aiding President Bola Tinubu’s agenda to weaken opposition parties ahead of the 2027 polls by granting access to a factional leader of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).

In a statement issued Monday by the Atiku Media Office, Atiku alleged that INEC’s actions amounted to partisanship and a violation of the Constitution and the Electoral Act.

The statement referenced a July 11, 2026 claim by Nafiu Bala Gombe, who “parades himself as National Chairman of the African Democratic Congress (ADC)”, that he had succeeded in uploading the names of his candidates on INEC’s portal.

According to Atiku’s office, uploading candidates is part of the process for the 2027 General Elections, made possible by access codes granted to political parties in line with INEC guidelines.

“Meanwhile, INEC has been mum, and has not denied or confirmed this obvious contradiction to the law and its own guidelines,” the statement said.

Atiku’s team argued that by granting an access code to Bala Gombe, INEC was recognizing a “pretender” despite having “since validated the chairmanship of the Sen. David Mark-led exco.”

“By granting access code to Bala Gombe, a pretender, laying claims to the chairmanship of the ADC, though the law is not on his side and INEC has since validated the chairmanship of the Sen. David Mark-led exco, the electoral umpire is once again manifesting its partisanship,” the statement noted.

It drew parallels with a past incident under Prof. Joash Amupitan-led INEC, alleging the commission “illegally removed the names of the duly recognised ADC exco following the judicial rascality of Justice Lifu in ignoring a superior ruling of an appellate court.”

The statement described the “so-called ‘successful’ uploading of ‘candidates’ by Nafiu Bala Gombe” as lacking legal basis.

“Nafiu Bala Gombe is not recognised as ADC Chairman. Mark is duly recognised. Can there be two recognised Chairmen of a political party? Possibly only in an INEC led by Amupitan. Can INEC grant two access codes to a political party? Certainly not,” it added.

Atiku’s office warned that the development “is a recipe for crisis and confirms that Prof Joash Amupitan was appointed to enable the weakening of the opposition parties by creating crisis even where none exists.”

Citing the law, the statement noted that Section 222 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) provides that candidates must emerge through recognized party primaries supervised by INEC, while Section 84 of the Electoral Act 2022 requires parties to submit only one validly nominated candidate per elective office.

“Nafiu Bala Gombe and his criminal gang did not conduct any primaries. The INEC granting of access code to Nafiu Bala Gombe is unconstitutional and unlawful. The only submitted candidates known to the law are those of David Mark. Any parallel submission such as Nafiu Bala Gombe’s is null and void,” it said.

The statement called on the INEC Chairman to stop “fomenting crisis in the ADC and the other opposition parties and by so doing helping President Bola Tinubu’s agenda of total State capture.”

Headline

Appeal Court Upholds Judgment Ordering INEC to Derecognise Mark-led EXCO

Published

5 days ago

July 13, 2026

Eric

The Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja on Monday affirmed the judgment restraining the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising or participating in any state congresses organised by committees appointed by the Senator David Mark-led caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).

The appellate court decision was a split of two-to-one.

A three-member panel of the appellate court, in a lead verdict delivered by Justice Okon Abang, said it found no reason to set aside the restraining order the Federal High Court in Abuja had issued against the Mark-led ADC on April 29.

It further upheld the order of trial Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, which restrained the Mark-led executives from interfering with the tenure and functions of the party’s elected state executives.

The appellate court concurred that responsibility for conducting state congresses of political parties rests with elected state executive committees, not with the national leadership.

While Justices Abang and Donatus Okorowo gave the majority verdict barring the electoral body from acknowledging the outcome of congresses held by the Mark-led leadership of the ADC, the head of the appellate court’s panel, Justice Abba Mohammed, gave a dissenting judgment.

In his minority decision, Justice Mohammed held that the case that precipitated the restraining order bordered on a non-justiciable internal affair of a political party.

He held that the trial court was wrong to have assumed jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

Meanwhile, the Court of Appeal judgment may jeopardise the presidential candidacies of former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and other candidates who emerged through the national congress organised by the Mark-led faction of the ADC, ahead of the 2027 general elections.

It will be recalled that the High Court had, in its judgment, held that the four-year tenure of the ADC’s State Working Committees and State Executive Committees remained valid and subsisting, pending the conduct of properly constituted congresses and the convocation of a national convention.

The judgment followed a suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/581/2026, lodged before the court by aggrieved members of the ADC.

Those behind the suit are Don Norman Obinna, Johnny Tovie Derek, Obah C. Ehigiator, Hon. Olona Yinka, Dr. Charles Idowu Omideji, Samuel Pam Gyang, and Obianyo Patrick, who told the court that they sued for themselves and on behalf of all State Chairmen and State Executive Committees of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).

Listed as defendants in the matter are the ADC; Sen. David Mark; Sen. Patricia Akwashiki; Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi; Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola; and Prof. Oserheimen Osunbor (sued on behalf of the Caretaker/Interim National Working Committee); and INEC.

The plaintiffs had, among other things, challenged the decision of the Senator Mark-led leadership of the ADC to constitute committees for the purpose of conducting state congresses.

They challenged the validity of appointments made by the Mark-led caretaker committee, arguing that planned state congresses slated for April 2026, if conducted under the supervision of the said caretaker committee, would constitute a gross violation of the party’s constitution.

It was further the position of the plaintiffs that only duly elected party organs recognised under the party’s constitution possess the power to conduct congresses.

While agreeing with the plaintiffs, Justice Abdulmalik held that neither the 1999 Constitution, as amended, nor the Constitution of the ADC empowered the caretaker/interim National Working Committee led by Senator Mark to appoint committees for the purpose of conducting state congresses.

The court held that the claims brought before it by the plaintiffs were valid and deserving of judicial consideration, citing an alleged breach of constitutional and statutory provisions.

It held that Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, mandates political parties to conduct periodic elections based on democratic principles, adding that Article 23 of the ADC Constitution also provides that national and state officers shall hold office for a maximum of two terms spanning eight years.

Justice Abdulmalik stressed that although courts are generally reluctant to interfere in the domestic affairs of political parties, they nonetheless intervene where there is a clear allegation of violation of constitutional or statutory provisions. Political commentary articles

She held that evidence before the court established that the tenure of the state executive committees of the ADC remained valid and must be allowed to run its full course without interference.

The court stressed that only those elected structures have the authority to organise state congresses, and it accordingly nullified any process initiated by the Senator Mark-led caretaker leadership.

Earlier, the court dismissed a preliminary objection filed by the defendants challenging the competence of the suit and the court’s jurisdiction to entertain it.

It held that the subject matter of the plaintiffs’ action pertained to the affairs of INEC and therefore fell within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court under Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.

The court also waved aside the defendants’ contention that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust internal dispute resolution mechanisms before instituting the action.

It held that the plaintiffs had the requisite locus standi (legal right) to file the suit.

The appellate court, while upholding the restraining order, said it had a duty to intervene so as to “prevent anarchy and ensure the survival of democracy in Nigeria.”

It cited a recent Supreme Court judgment in the leadership crisis rocking the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to hold that the ADC case could not be classified as a domestic affair of a political party.

“Once a complaint before the court is anchored on a constitutional infraction, the shield of internal affairs drops and the veil is lifted for judicial intervention,” Justice Abang added in the majority judgment.

Consequently, the panel dismissed the appeal marked CA/ABJ/CV/608/2026, which the ADC lodged in order to set aside the high court judgment.

It held that congresses and the national convention conducted by the Mark-led ADC amounted to a nullity as they were held in disobedience to a subsisting order that the High Court made on April 14.

Having resolved the case against the ADC, the appellate court awarded a cost of N10million against the party.

Shortly after the judgment, the ADC, which was represented by its National Welfare Secretary, Mr Nkem Ukandu, said the party would take the case before the Supreme Court.