*Says “Supreme Court Will Give Us A Definite Candidate Before January Election”
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/2026-IDRI-Masterclass.png")
Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Onyekachi Monday Ubani, SAN, has urged Nigerians to examine the facts, court processes and legal issues surrounding the Federal High Court judgment nullifying the leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) under former Senate President David Mark before attributing political motives to the decision.
Ubani maintained that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) would ordinarily consider the latest judgment in the dispute but must first obtain and examine the court’s decision before determining its implications for former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar’s presidential candidacy and other nominations made under the Mark-led leadership.
Speaking on Channels Television’s Politics Today on Thursday, November 5, 2026, the senior lawyer said he expected the legal dispute to reach the Supreme Court and expressed confidence that the apex court would resolve the matter before the presidential election scheduled for January 2027.
His comments followed the judgment delivered by Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja, which declared the Mark-led caretaker leadership of the ADC unlawful and invalidated decisions taken under its authority, including the presidential primary that produced Atiku as the party’s candidate.
Ubani, however, cautioned against drawing conclusions without examining the certified true copy of the judgment and understanding the issues the court was called upon to determine.
“We are yet to have a copy,” he said, explaining that although he had examined the originating summons, counter-affidavit and reply filed by the parties before the judgment, he had not obtained the court’s final decision.
He recalled that an interlocutory dispute arising from the case had previously reached the Supreme Court, which directed that the substantive matter be determined by the trial court.
“So this matter today has been decided on its merit,” Ubani stated.
He explained that the appropriate approach was to examine the questions presented for determination and the findings made by the judge before commenting on the legal or political implications.
“Let’s get to know what was issued before the court and what was the decision that the court has even decided before making any comment,” he said.
Addressing concerns about conflicting judgments concerning the ADC leadership, including decisions delivered by Justice Lifu, Justice Musa Liman and a High Court in Lafia, Ubani explained that cases involving the same political party might nevertheless raise different legal issues.
According to him, the outcome of each case depends on its particular facts, the claims presented and the legal questions requiring determination.
He maintained that the existence of different judgments should not automatically lead to the conclusion that the courts had determined identical issues inconsistently.
“It’s the facts of the case that actually determine what the court will decide at every point in time,” he stated.
Ubani also addressed the legal distinction between the internal affairs of political parties and matters involving alleged violations of statutory or constitutional provisions.
He explained that Nigerian courts had consistently recognised the autonomy of political parties in managing their internal affairs.
Citing Onuoha v. Okafor, he observed that disputes concerning internal party leadership and political arrangements could ordinarily fall outside the jurisdiction of the courts.
However, the senior lawyer maintained that party autonomy could not automatically prevent judicial intervention where a claimant alleged violations of the political party’s constitution, the Electoral Act or the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
According to him, courts were obliged to examine their jurisdiction where litigants raised allegations involving breaches of applicable laws.
“If somebody comes to court, even for a matter that is purely a political party matter, and then alleges breach of either the constitution of the political party or the Electoral Act or the Constitution, the court’s power cannot in any way be ousted,” Ubani said.
He added that the legal system recognises the availability of remedies where enforceable rights have been violated.
“Where there is a wrong, there is a remedy. Ubi jus, ubi remedium,” he stated.
Turning to the suit instituted by former ADC Deputy National Chairman, North-East, Nafiu Bala Gombe, Ubani explained that the plaintiff’s challenge went beyond dissatisfaction with the political party’s leadership arrangement.
He said Bala raised specific allegations concerning compliance with the ADC constitution, electoral legislation and constitutional requirements.
According to Ubani, one of the central allegations concerned the notice issued for the party’s 99th National Executive Committee meeting, at which the leadership transition was considered.
He explained that Bala questioned whether the necessary statutory notice had been given to INEC before the meeting.
Referring to the Electoral Act 2022, Ubani said the law required 21 days’ notice to the electoral commission before certain party meetings, including conventions and congresses.
He recalled that Bala challenged an earlier communication dated July 4, 2025, and referred to a subsequent notice issued on July 22 for a meeting scheduled for July 29.
“That is less than 21 days’ notice,” Ubani observed.
He also referred to Section 82 of the Electoral Act 2022, particularly the provisions dealing with notification requirements and the consequences of non-compliance.
However, he indicated that he wanted to examine how the trial court resolved the issue rather than presume the precise basis of the judgment.
Another question raised by Bala, according to Ubani, concerned whether he had lawfully resigned from his position as Deputy National Chairman.
The senior lawyer explained that Bala maintained he never resigned and did not sign any resignation letter submitted to INEC.
He said the plaintiff also relied on the party’s constitution concerning the procedure for resignation and succession to leadership positions.
Ubani identified the alleged resignation as one of the issues he particularly wanted to see addressed in the judgment.
“I want to see how the court resolved the issue of the letter that he says he never signed,” he said.
He also explained that Bala challenged the emergence of the caretaker committee, arguing that replacing an elected National Working Committee required compliance with democratic procedures prescribed by law and the party’s constitution.
Ubani referred to Sections 223 and 228 of the 1999 Constitution in discussing the requirements concerning political party leadership and internal democratic processes.
According to him, the plaintiff questioned whether the caretaker leadership emerged through a process consistent with those constitutional requirements.
The senior lawyer said Bala also raised questions concerning the eligibility of Mark and Aregbesola to assume the positions of National Chairman and National Secretary.
He explained that the claimant alleged that the two politicians were not properly registered members of the ADC and had failed to satisfy the relevant membership and leadership requirements before assuming office.
Ubani stressed that these were allegations raised in the court processes and that the findings made on them could only be properly assessed after examining the judgment.
“I want to see how the court resolved the issue of the caretaker committee,” he said, adding that he also wanted to understand how the court determined the eligibility questions concerning Mark and the party’s secretary.
On whether Bala had the legal standing to institute the action, Ubani explained that the courts would also have considered whether the plaintiff established a sufficient legal interest in the leadership dispute.
He recalled that the issue of interim relief had previously arisen before the case proceeded through the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.
According to him, the determination of the plaintiff’s standing and the court’s jurisdiction would be central to understanding the judgment.
Addressing what INEC should do following the latest decision, Ubani said the commission would ordinarily act on the most recent judicial pronouncement while taking account of any subsequent appellate proceedings.
“INEC will always obey the latest in time, and that is this particular judgment,” he stated.
He, however, explained that the commission would first obtain a copy of Justice Lifu’s judgment and examine the actual orders before deciding whether to alter its published list of candidates.
Ubani noted that the ADC had indicated its intention to appeal the judgment and seek a stay.
According to him, INEC’s legal advisers would need to review the judgment in its entirety before recommending what administrative steps should be taken.
He explained that the commission would have to determine whether the judgment required the removal of any candidate’s name or whether an existing nomination should remain pending further developments.
The programme’s host observed that, as far as INEC was concerned at the time of the discussion, Atiku remained the ADC presidential candidate until the commission decided otherwise.
Ubani agreed, responding, “Correct.”
He maintained that the dispute would contribute to the development of Nigerian jurisprudence concerning political party autonomy, judicial jurisdiction and the circumstances in which alleged violations of statutory or constitutional provisions permit court intervention.
The senior lawyer also examined the wider implications of the judgment for candidates nominated under the Mark-led leadership.
Asked whether the decision affected governorship candidates and other persons who emerged through primaries conducted under the disputed leadership, Ubani explained that a finding invalidating the foundation of a leadership structure could also affect decisions flowing from it.
“Anything that David Mark does based upon this judgment, because the court says so, is nullified. Whatever his emergence was is a nullity, then he cannot give birth to any baby. Any baby that he gives birth to is defective. That’s the consequence of this judgment,” he said.
Using an analogy, Ubani explained that where the leadership responsible for conducting or authorising party primaries was declared unlawful, nominations produced through that leadership could become legally questionable.
He described the leadership as the foundation from which other party decisions emerged.
According to him, if that foundation was legally defective, actions dependent on it could also be affected.
“If they are saying that that fountain is contaminated, every other thing around that particular decision is contaminated,” he stated.
He added that a person whose emergence as party leader was invalid might lack the authority to produce candidates for elective offices.
“If you are not properly elected as a leader, then you cannot in any way produce a candidate that will stand for election,” he said.
Ubani, however, linked those consequences to the judgment remaining legally operative, stressing the importance of understanding how the issues would ultimately be determined by the appellate courts.
The discussion also touched on the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in the dispute involving former Rivers State Governor Rotimi Amaechi and Celestine Omehia.
Asked about the implications of that decision and other constitutional provisions concerning party nominations, Ubani referred to Section 285(13) of the Constitution.
He explained that one of the lessons drawn from the Amaechi and Omehia litigation was the constitutional restriction against a person benefiting from an election through a party primary in which the person did not participate.
According to him, the ADC dispute could eventually require the courts to determine which primary election was legally valid and which candidates could rely on it.
He maintained that the issue would become particularly important if the judgment nullifying the Mark-led leadership remained in force.
Ubani also addressed concerns about whether the dispute could be resolved before the January 2027 presidential election.
Although he expressed uncertainty about the precise election date mentioned during the programme, he noted that political cases ordinarily receive accelerated hearings because of their time-sensitive nature.
He said that once the ADC filed its appeal, the Court of Appeal would be expected to give the matter priority, while the Supreme Court would also recognise the importance of resolving the dispute before Nigerians went to the polls.
According to him, the fact that the controversy involved a major political party and its presidential nomination made an early judicial resolution particularly important.
“I have this belief that the Supreme Court will handle this matter and end it up and give us a definite candidate for any political party before the election in January,” Ubani stated.
“It has happened here before, and it will happen again.”
He maintained that INEC was monitoring the legal proceedings and would act in accordance with the final judicial position when the time came.
The senior lawyer urged Nigerians to allow the judiciary to determine the dispute fairly and in accordance with the law rather than approach the judgment solely from a political perspective.
“Let the judiciary play the role it’s supposed to play in a fair manner, by looking at the law and making sure that it does not truncate our democracy,” he concluded.
[A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
Available now for NGN 40,000 at ASC Publications, 10, Boyle Street, Onikan, Lagos. Beside High Court, TBS. Email publications@ayindesanni.com or WhatsApp +2347056667384. Purchase Link: https://paystack.com/buy/evidence-act-complete-annotation
______________________________________________________________________ “Enhance Legal Practice With Authoritative Reports” — Alexander Payne Offers Comprehensive Law Reports, Spanning Over A Century Of Nigerian Jurisprudence
Interested buyers are encouraged to place their orders and enquiries via:
0704 444 4777, 0704 444 4999, 0818 199 9888
Website: www.alexandernigeria.com
