Leadership Dispute Puts African Democratic Congress in Legal and Electoral Limbo
The ongoing leadership conflict within the African Democratic Congress (ADC) has evolved into a complex legal question that goes beyond party politics. At the heart of the matter is whether the Independent National Electoral Commission’s (INEC) current position aligns with the sworn affidavit it submitted to the court earlier in the dispute.
The controversy began after July 2025, when then-ADC National Chairman Ralph Nwosu stepped down and endorsed a new National Working Committee led by David Mark. Nafiu Bala Gombe, the former Deputy National Chairman, claimed he should have succeeded Nwosu. INEC had previously accepted documentation indicating that Gombe resigned in May 2025, making his objection the trigger for subsequent litigation.
Gombe filed a suit in the Federal High Court in Abuja in September 2025 to challenge Mark’s leadership. INEC initially told the court that the leadership change had already occurred and that the matter was effectively settled. This position formed part of the record when the Court of Appeal issued a March 12, 2026, directive for all parties to maintain the status quo, without explicitly defining which leadership should be preserved.
Subsequent developments complicated matters. INEC, citing judicial caution, withdrew recognition of the Mark-led leadership and refused to acknowledge any faction. While the move was presented as compliance with the court order, it effectively suspended the leadership change it had previously described as completed, creating a legal inconsistency.
The Mark-led leadership has appealed for a clear affirmation of its legitimacy and protection from interference. INEC has maintained that it is prioritising institutional neutrality, while the party insists that existing recognition should remain until a court rules otherwise.
The dispute has immediate practical consequences. By refusing to supervise or recognise either faction, INEC has effectively frozen ADC’s internal processes, including congresses, conventions, and candidate nominations for the 2027 elections. This uncertainty risks invalidating internal party decisions, delaying candidate selection, and potentially limiting the party’s electoral participation.
Beyond procedural concerns, the ADC’s political momentum as a credible opposition platform is at stake. Prolonged uncertainty over leadership could weaken internal cohesion, discourage new members, and hinder the party’s pre-election mobilisation.
Until the courts provide a definitive ruling, INEC’s stance—while framed as neutral—has the practical effect of placing the party in administrative limbo, with potential repercussions for both its organisational stability and electoral viability.
