Court Nullifies Atiku’s 2027 Presidential Candidacy, Sacks David Mark-Led ADC Leadership

By CentralNewsNG News Desk | November 6, 2026

The Federal High Court in Abuja has nullified former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar’s emergence as the African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate for the 2027 general election, following a judgment that also invalidated the party’s leadership under former Senate President David Mark.

The judgment was delivered on Thursday, November 5, 2026, by Justice Peter Lifu, who declared the Mark-led caretaker committee illegal and set aside actions taken by the leadership on behalf of the party.

The affected decisions include the process that produced Atiku as the ADC’s presidential flag bearer, the emergence of former Osun State Governor Rauf Aregbesola as National Secretary and the nominations of other candidates for the 2027 elections.

The ruling followed a suit filed by Nafiu Bala Gombe, a former Deputy National Chairman of the ADC, who challenged the process through which Mark and other officials assumed control of the party.

Atiku has rejected the judgment and promised to challenge it at the Court of Appeal. His campaign council has also indicated that it will seek appropriate interim legal relief.

Why the Court Nullified Atiku’s Candidacy

The dispute arose from the leadership transition within the ADC following the resignation of its former National Chairman, Ralph Nwosu.

Nafiu Bala Gombe argued that, under the party’s constitution, he was entitled to assume the position of national chairman after Nwosu’s resignation.

He challenged the emergence of Mark and other members of the caretaker leadership, arguing that the process did not comply with the ADC constitution and relevant provisions of the Electoral Act and the 1999 Constitution.

The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025, listed the ADC, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), David Mark, Rauf Aregbesola and Ralph Nwosu as defendants.

Gombe asked the court to declare the Mark-led leadership invalid and restrain Mark and Aregbesola from presenting themselves as the party’s National Chairman and National Secretary.

He also sought the nullification of decisions taken by the leadership.

Justice Lifu upheld the plaintiff’s case and ruled against the process that produced the Mark-led executive.

Because the leadership supervised the party’s presidential primary and other nomination activities, the court’s decision also affected the candidacies produced under its authority.

Atiku’s Presidential Ticket Among Decisions Invalidated

Atiku secured the ADC presidential ticket in May 2026 after joining the party as part of his preparations for another attempt at the presidency.

His emergence followed the party’s leadership transition under David Mark and the political realignment involving several opposition figures.

The former vice-president had previously contested Nigeria’s presidential election in 2007, 2019 and 2023, among other earlier political contests.

The 2027 election was expected to be another presidential contest for the former vice-president, who served under President Olusegun Obasanjo between 1999 and 2007.

However, the latest judgment has placed the legal foundation of his ADC nomination in doubt.

Channels Television reported that Atiku’s name had earlier been published by INEC as the party’s presidential candidate.

The court’s decision now raises questions about the status of that nomination and the steps INEC may take while the legal dispute continues.

The ruling also affects the party’s other nominees, meaning the consequences extend beyond the presidential race.

Atiku Rejects Judgment, Vows to Appeal

Atiku has described the ruling as an attempt to frustrate his presidential ambition and weaken the opposition ahead of the 2027 general election.

In a statement, the former vice-president questioned the circumstances surrounding the judgment and argued that an earlier Federal High Court decision had already addressed aspects of the ADC leadership dispute.

He referred to a judgment delivered on July 2, 2026, by Justice Musa Liman in a separate case involving the party.

According to Atiku, the earlier decision raised issues relating to jurisdiction, the standing of the claimant and the failure to exhaust internal party remedies.

He argued that the latest proceedings had reopened a dispute that had already been considered by another Federal High Court.

Atiku also questioned the timing of the November 5 judgment, which came shortly after the ADC held a campaign rally in Sokoto State.

He alleged that the ruling was part of an effort to weaken his support in northern Nigeria and disrupt his campaign.

These are allegations made by Atiku and his political camp. The court’s judgment itself concerned the legality of the ADC leadership transition and the decisions taken under it.

Campaign Council Seeks Legal Relief

The ADC Presidential Campaign Council has announced plans to challenge the ruling through the appropriate judicial process.

The council’s legal team is preparing to approach the Court of Appeal and seek interim relief, including a stay of execution where legally applicable.

A stay of execution, if granted, could affect how the judgment is implemented while the appeal is being considered.

However, an intention to file an appeal or seek a stay is not the same as an order already granted by a court.

As of November 6, the campaign council had not publicly confirmed that a stay application had been granted.

The legal team is also expected to examine the full judgment and the relationship between the latest decision and the earlier proceedings involving the ADC leadership.

Earlier Federal High Court Judgment Becomes Important

A major issue in Atiku’s response is the earlier judgment delivered by Justice Musa Liman on July 2, 2026.

That case, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1637/2025, was brought by Leke Abejide, a member of the House of Representatives, who also challenged the process through which Mark and Aregbesola emerged as ADC national officers.

Justice Liman dismissed the suit after considering issues including jurisdiction, the claimant’s standing and internal party remedies.

Atiku argues that the earlier ruling should have been taken into account before the court entertained the later case.

However, the two suits were filed by different claimants, and their legal claims and operative orders need to be examined carefully.

Premium Times reported that it had not independently examined the complete enrolled orders of both judgments to determine whether they directly conflict.

The relationship between the decisions is therefore likely to form part of the arguments before the appellate court.

Ruling Also Affects Other ADC Candidates

The consequences of the judgment extend to candidates nominated by the ADC for the 2027 general election.

The court invalidated nominations made under the Mark-led leadership, affecting candidates seeking governorship, Senate, House of Representatives and State House of Assembly seats.

The reported total of affected candidates is 1,503, comprising:

• 28 governorship candidates
• 108 senatorial candidates
• 352 House of Representatives candidates
• 1,015 State House of Assembly candidates

The ruling has therefore placed the party’s wider electoral preparations under legal uncertainty.

If the judgment remains in force, the invalidation of the leadership and its decisions could undermine the nominations made under that executive.

However, the ADC’s planned appeal means the dispute has not necessarily reached its final judicial conclusion.

It would be premature to describe the affected candidates as permanently disqualified before the appellate process and any further relevant court orders are considered.

ADC Accuses APC of Interference

Following the judgment, ADC officials criticised the ruling and accused the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) of attempting to weaken opposition parties ahead of the 2027 election.

The party’s National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, rejected the decision and maintained that the Mark-led leadership had a legitimate basis for its emergence.

Atiku also alleged that the timing of the judgment was intended to disrupt the opposition’s campaign.

The APC has denied involvement in the ADC leadership dispute, describing it as an internal party matter that should be resolved through the legal process.

The ruling has also attracted criticism from other political figures and opposition groups, who have expressed concerns about its implications for multiparty competition.

These political reactions do not determine the legal validity of the judgment, which remains subject to the available judicial processes.

What Happens Next to Atiku’s 2027 Ambition?

The immediate next step is the ADC’s proposed appeal against the Federal High Court judgment.

The Court of Appeal will have to consider the legal arguments presented by the parties, including the validity of the Mark-led leadership structure and the effect of the earlier proceedings.

The outcome could determine whether the judgment stands, is overturned or is modified.

The dispute also creates questions for INEC concerning the recognition of the party’s leadership and the status of candidates submitted under the affected executive.

Until the legal position becomes clearer, the ADC faces uncertainty over its presidential ticket and other nominations.

For Atiku, the central issue is whether the appellate process will restore the legal basis of his nomination or leave the Federal High Court’s decision in place.

The former vice-president has insisted that his campaign will continue, but the final status of his candidacy will depend on the outcome of the legal proceedings and any applicable orders.

Sources: Channels Television, November 5, 2026; Punch, November 5–6, 2026; Premium Times, November 5, 2026; Reuters, November 5, 2026; Associated Press, November 2026.