ADC LEADERS’ TUSSLE AWAITING JUDGEMENT TRAJECTORIES

• Desperation, Greed, Dissolution & Disorientation — The Party Legacy, Rainbow Coalition, Legitimacy of Party Transfer and the Post-Election Legal Consequences

By Dahiru Yusuf Yabo
Political & Security Analyst | Former Commissioner | Public Policy Advocate

The continuing leadership tussle within the African Democratic Congress, ADC, is gradually becoming much bigger than an internal party disagreement. It is becoming a fundamental test of whether political desperation can safely substitute for institutional legitimacy, whether an inherited party platform can legally accommodate a massive Rainbow Coalition, and whether political actors can transfer the control of an existing political party without creating legal vulnerabilities capable of haunting the coalition beyond the 2027 general elections.

The danger is not simply that one faction may defeat another. The greater danger is that the unresolved controversy surrounding the party’s leadership, congresses, conventions and constitutional compliance could eventually become ammunition in the hands of rival political parties and candidates after the elections.

This is where the ADC leadership crisis requires much deeper examination.

A political party is not merely a logo, a ballot symbol or an electoral vehicle available for political acquisition. It has a constitution, registered organs, existing members, historical structures and a legal personality recognised within Nigeria’s electoral framework. Consequently, the political transfer of influence over such a party cannot be treated as though it were the sale or transfer of an ordinary private organisation.

The Rainbow Coalition may have enormous political potential, but political strength does not automatically cure legal weakness. The coalition may assemble former governors, presidential aspirants, legislators, political leaders and influential organisations, but none of these can by themselves erase a defect in the legal foundation of the party through which they intend to contest an election.

This is precisely where party legacy trust becomes important.

Those who enter an existing political party under a coalition arrangement inherit not only its electoral symbol but also the responsibility to preserve the legality and institutional continuity of that platform. If the foundation is compromised, the political structure built upon it may remain vulnerable regardless of how impressive the coalition appears on the campaign trail.

The immediate leadership dispute therefore deserves to be viewed from two separate dimensions: political control before the election and legal consequences after the election.

Before the election, competing factions may fight over congresses, executives, membership registers, nominations and recognition. After the election, however, the battlefield could move from internal party politics to election tribunals and appellate courts.

That second battlefield could be considerably more dangerous.

Under the Electoral Act 2022 framework, an election may be questioned where the person declared elected was not qualified, where the election was invalid because of corrupt practices or non-compliance with the Electoral Act, or where the declared winner was not duly elected by the majority of lawful votes cast. Candidates and political parties that participated in the election have standing to present election petitions.

Therefore, ADC should not assume that whatever survives politically before the election automatically becomes immune from challenge after the election.

If, for example, a rival candidate can establish that the ADC candidate emerged from a nomination process conducted contrary to mandatory provisions of the Electoral Act, or that the sponsoring party itself was operating through a structure subsequently found to be legally defective, the opposing candidate may seek to exploit the consequences within the appropriate electoral and judicial processes—subject, of course, to the specific statutory provisions, applicable deadlines, evidential requirements and the facts of the particular election.

That is the crucial distinction: a political arrangement may survive political criticism but still face judicial scrutiny if a legally cognisable electoral violation is established.

The courts have already demonstrated that ADC’s internal controversies cannot simply be dismissed as matters beyond judicial intervention. In July 2026, the Court of Appeal upheld restrictions concerning the recognition of congresses organised by the Mark-led caretaker structure and held that the dispute could attract judicial intervention where constitutional infractions were alleged.

That should serve as a warning to every political strategist involved.

The argument that “this is merely an internal party affair” cannot be treated as an absolute shield where the alleged conduct intersects with constitutional or electoral obligations. Indeed, the legal trajectory surrounding ADC has already demonstrated how quickly an internal political dispute can become a question affecting INEC recognition, congresses and the party’s ability to organise itself lawfully.

The post-election consequences could consequently be enormous.

Imagine a situation in which an ADC candidate wins a senatorial, House of Representatives or governorship election, only for a defeated candidate or participating political party to present evidence alleging that the ADC candidate’s nomination arose from a constitutionally or statutorily defective process. The dispute would no longer be about who controls the ADC headquarters. It could become a question about whether the candidate was validly sponsored, whether the relevant party structure had authority to nominate the candidate and whether the alleged illegality falls within a legally recognised ground for challenging the election.

That is not a theoretical nuisance. It is precisely why political parties must ensure that every step leading to the ballot is legally defensible before the ballot is cast.

There is another important caution. Not every internal party disagreement automatically invalidates an election. The law recognises the principle of substantial compliance. Under the Electoral Act 2022, non-compliance does not automatically invalidate an election where the Tribunal or Court finds that the election substantially complied with the law and that the alleged non-compliance did not substantially affect the result.

Consequently, nobody should assume that a rival candidate merely alleging “ADC illegality” would automatically overturn an election. The petitioner would still have to establish a legally competent ground, provide credible evidence and satisfy the applicable judicial requirements.

But therein lies the danger for ADC: why create an avoidable litigation opening in the first place?

A serious political coalition should not enter a national election carrying unresolved structural questions that its opponents can later weaponise.

The desperation to capture a party, the greed to control its machinery, the dissolution of its existing structures and the disorientation arising from competing claims of legitimacy can ultimately become the very weaknesses through which an opposition coalition destroys itself.

The question therefore should not merely be: Who controls ADC today?

It should be: Can the ADC structure, its congresses, its leadership, its membership, its nomination processes and its candidates withstand judicial scrutiny tomorrow?

That is the real test.

The Rainbow Coalition must understand that political legitimacy and legal legitimacy are not interchangeable. A coalition can possess enormous public enthusiasm and still suffer a devastating legal vulnerability. Conversely, a properly regularised party structure can give a coalition the institutional foundation necessary to contest elections confidently and defend its victories when challenged.

Nigeria has witnessed too many political movements collapse because their architects concentrated more on winning the political battle than securing the legal foundation of the victory.

ADC must not repeat that mistake.

The present leadership crisis therefore presents an opportunity for correction rather than merely confrontation. The party should seek a settlement that produces a constitutionally defensible leadership structure, properly recognised organs, lawful congresses, credible membership records and nomination processes capable of surviving judicial examination.

Anything short of this may amount to constructing a magnificent political building on disputed land.

And when the election is over, the defeated political opponents will not need to destroy that building themselves.

They may simply take the disputed foundation to court.

The most dangerous political mistake, therefore, is to confuse electoral victory with legal finality.

The ballot can produce a winner.

Only the law can determine whether that victory is capable of surviving a competent challenge.

For ADC and the Rainbow Coalition, the warning is therefore unmistakable: settle the legitimacy question before the election, or prepare to defend it after the election.

Nigeria deserves an opposition coalition built not upon desperation, personality cults and political expediency, but upon constitutional order, institutional credibility, legal legitimacy and democratic trust.

The real question awaiting ADC is no longer simply who will control the party.

It is whether the party that goes into the 2027 election will possess the legal strength to survive the election that follows.

Dahiru Yusuf Yabo
Political Analyst & Former Commissioner Sokoto State