ADC Warns APC: ‘You Are Playing With Fire’ Over Court Judgment Nullifying Atiku’s Candidacy

The African Democratic Congress has accused the ruling APC of attempting to cripple opposition politics following a Federal High Court judgment sacking David Mark’s leadership and nullifying Atiku Abubakar’s presidential candidacy, warning that the controversy could threaten Nigeria’s democratic stability.

The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has warned the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) that it is “playing with fire” in what the opposition party described as attempts to undermine political competition and cripple opposition parties ahead of the 2027 general elections.

The warning followed Thursday’s judgment of the Federal High Court in Abuja, which removed the Senator David Mark-led leadership of the ADC and nullified all actions taken by the disputed executives, including the nomination of former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar as the party’s presidential candidate.

The judgment, delivered by Justice Peter Lifu, has triggered a fresh political controversy, with the ADC alleging that the ruling could deprive millions of Nigerians of their constitutional right to freely choose their leaders.

In a statement issued on Thursday and signed by its National Publicity Secretary, Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi, the party described the development as a dangerous attempt to weaken the opposition at a critical moment in the country’s political history.

The ADC questioned the timing of the judgment, which came barely 24 hours after its presidential campaign rally in Sokoto, where Atiku reportedly received a massive crowd of supporters.

According to the party, the proximity of the ruling to the rally raised concerns about what it described as political desperation by the APC.

“We have reasons to believe that the judgment had long been written on this case. The Sokoto rally was simply a trigger that stampeded its delivery,” the statement said.

The party argued that the Sokoto rally had demonstrated growing public support for its political platform and its promise to address economic hardship and make life more affordable for Nigerians.

It alleged that the judgment was an attempt to undermine the momentum generated by the rally and prevent the opposition from translating public support into electoral gains.

The ADC, however, did not present independent evidence in the statement establishing that the APC influenced the judgment.

ADC Says Judgment Goes Beyond Atiku, Mark

The opposition party insisted that the consequences of the court ruling extend far beyond the political fortunes of Atiku and Mark.

According to the ADC, the judgment could affect thousands of its candidates seeking elective positions across the country, potentially disrupting their participation in the 2027 electoral process.

The party said the controversy was fundamentally about the democratic rights of Nigerians and the ability of political parties to present candidates for elections.

“This is not about Atiku Abubakar or David Mark. It is about the democratic rights of Nigerians to freely choose their own leaders. It is about the rights of thousands of candidates to participate in a democratic process,” the statement said.

The ADC maintained that the ruling could create a situation in which voters are denied the opportunity to support candidates of their choice because of disputes over party leadership.

It warned that such a development could weaken confidence in the electoral system and deepen public frustration with the country’s democratic institutions.

The party also argued that the implications of the judgment could extend to state and federal constituencies where ADC candidates had already begun preparing for the elections.

Party Cites Earlier Judgment, Questions Legal Basis

The ADC described Justice Lifu’s decision as legally indefensible, insisting that it would challenge the ruling through every available judicial process.

A central plank of its argument is an earlier judgment delivered by Justice Musa Liman of the Federal High Court on July 2, 2026.

The party cited Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1637/2025, which it said affirmed the legitimacy of the David Mark-led National Working Committee (NWC) and directed the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to recognise the leadership.

According to the ADC, the earlier judgment remains subsisting and should have been considered before the court issued Thursday’s decision.

The party argued that a court of coordinate jurisdiction cannot sit on appeal over, review, vary or nullify a subsisting judgment delivered by another court of equal jurisdiction.

“Our objection is particularly anchored on the subsisting judgment of Justice Musa Liman of the same Federal High Court, delivered on 2 July 2026 in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1637/2025, which affirmed the legitimacy of the David Mark-led NWC and directed INEC to recognise the leadership,” the statement said.

The party further maintained that the judgment should not be treated as a final determination of the legality of the Mark-led leadership without examining the earlier judicial pronouncement.

However, the ADC acknowledged that it was yet to obtain the Certified True Copy (CTC) of Thursday’s judgment.

It said the document would enable it to determine the precise terms, scope and operative orders of the court.

“The ADC, therefore, rejects any consequential orders founded on a determination that appears to disregard these fundamental legal principles. However, we await the Certified True Copy, CTC, of the said judgment to ascertain its precise terms, scope and operative orders,” the statement added.

The party’s position suggests that its legal challenge will focus heavily on whether Justice Lifu’s decision conflicts with the earlier judgment and whether the court had jurisdiction to make the orders it issued.

Judgment Followed Atiku’s Sokoto Campaign Rally

The timing of the ruling formed a major part of the ADC’s political reaction.

Atiku held his presidential campaign rally in Sokoto on Wednesday, November 4, where he reportedly received a large crowd of supporters.

The former vice-president used the rally to promise to address insecurity and economic hardship, positioning the ADC as an alternative to the Tinubu administration.

The following day, the Federal High Court delivered its judgment invalidating the Mark-led leadership and the presidential primary that produced him as the ADC candidate.

The party interpreted the sequence of events as evidence of what it described as growing anxiety within the ruling APC over the opposition’s political momentum.

It alleged that the ruling was intended to frustrate its campaign and prevent Nigerians from expressing their political preferences at the ballot box.

The APC has not been shown, in the supplied report, to have established any connection with the court’s decision.

The ADC’s allegations therefore remain political claims that would require independent evidence to substantiate.

Nevertheless, the party said it would not allow the judgment to derail its political activities or discourage its supporters.

ADC Accuses APC Of Using Courts Against Opposition

The party further accused the APC of repeatedly using judicial controversies to weaken opposition parties whenever they appeared to be gaining political strength.

It alleged that the ruling party had previously employed similar tactics against opposition movements and warned that the latest development could further erode public confidence in Nigeria’s democratic institutions.

“We have seen this script before. When they are scared that the opposition is gathering steam, they use their judges in the courts to influence legally indefensible judgments,” the statement said.

The ADC argued that Nigerians struggling with economic hardship and insecurity would not remain indifferent to what it described as attempts to restrict their political choices.

It maintained that the ultimate decision on who governs Nigeria should rest with voters and not be determined by political manoeuvres or judicial controversies.

The party said it expected Nigerians to resist any development that could undermine their democratic rights.

‘The Peace And Stability Of Nigeria Are Bigger Than Any President’

The ADC issued a particularly strong warning to the APC, arguing that efforts to eliminate political competition could have consequences for national stability.

It cautioned against what it described as excessive political desperation and urged the ruling party to consider the wider implications of its actions.

“We warn the APC: do not play with fires you cannot control. The peace and stability of Nigeria are bigger than the ambition of any president or political party,” the statement said.

The opposition party added that no political ambition should be allowed to jeopardise the country’s peace and democratic stability.

It warned that attempts to frustrate opposition parties could deepen political tensions and undermine public confidence in the electoral process.

The ADC maintained that Nigeria’s stability depends on respect for constitutional rights, political pluralism and the ability of citizens to participate freely in elections.

ADC Challenges Tinubu, APC To Test Their Popularity

The party also challenged President Bola Tinubu and the APC to demonstrate their popularity through a credible electoral process rather than attempting to weaken political opponents.

It argued that if the president believed his administration had performed well, there should be no reason to fear competition from opposition candidates.

“If the President thinks he has performed well in office, why is he afraid of competition? If the APC thinks that its policies and candidates are popular, why don’t they subject themselves to free and fair elections?” the statement asked.

The ADC insisted that the presidency should not be treated as the inheritance of any political party or individual.

It said Nigeria belongs to its citizens and that the democratic process must remain open to all political parties that meet the requirements of the law.

The Political Implications

The judgment has introduced considerable uncertainty into the ADC’s preparations for the 2027 elections.

With Atiku’s candidacy affected and the Mark-led leadership removed, the party faces the challenge of pursuing its legal appeal while maintaining its political organisation.

The outcome of the dispute could determine whether the ADC remains a viable platform for opposition consolidation.

It could also influence the broader political calculations of other opposition parties and politicians considering alliances ahead of the elections.

For INEC, the controversy presents another test of its ability to enforce court orders while maintaining neutrality and protecting the integrity of the electoral process.

The commission must ensure that its actions are guided by the law and any subsequent judicial orders.

The ADC’s allegations against the APC and the judiciary also underscore the growing sensitivity surrounding the 2027 elections, particularly amid concerns about economic hardship, insecurity and public confidence in political institutions.

However, the legal dispute must ultimately be resolved through the courts.

While political parties are entitled to challenge judgments they consider unjust, allegations of political interference must be supported by credible evidence.

The ADC has promised to pursue its appeal, insisting that it will not abandon its candidates or supporters.

As the legal battle unfolds, the central issue remains whether Nigeria’s democratic institutions can resolve political disputes without undermining the rights of citizens to participate freely in the electoral process.

For the ADC, the challenge is not merely to overturn the judgment but to preserve its political platform and demonstrate that the opposition can withstand legal and political pressures.

For the APC, the allegations present an opportunity to reaffirm its commitment to fair competition and democratic pluralism.

And for Nigerians, the unfolding controversy is another reminder that the credibility of the 2027 elections will depend not only on the conduct of political parties but also on the impartiality of the judiciary and the independence of the electoral umpire.