Candidates and supporters of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) protested outside the Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday, November 11, demanding the release of a certified judgment affecting the party’s disputed leadership and reported candidate nominations for the 2027 general elections.
The demonstration followed the ADC’s public complaint that it had been unable to obtain a certified true copy of a November 5 judgment delivered by Justice Peter Lifu.
Premium Times and Channels Television reported the protest, which brought renewed attention to the legal dispute surrounding the David Mark-led ADC national executive.
The opposition party has announced an appeal against the judgment and sought a stay of execution.
Meanwhile, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) said on November 9 that it had not received the authenticated judgment and would examine the document before determining its response.
IDNN has not independently established whether INEC subsequently received the judgment or issued a formal implementation decision.
ADC Candidates Demand Release of Judgment
According to Premium Times, candidates and supporters gathered outside the Federal High Court in Abuja on November 11 to demand the release of the judgment.
The demonstrators, identified in reporting as members of the Forum of ADC Candidates and other supporters, reportedly assembled near the court’s entrance.
They submitted a petition seeking access to the certified judgment, expressing concern about its implications for the party’s leadership and electoral preparations.
Channels Television separately reported the protest involving supporters of former Vice President Atiku Abubakar.
The demonstration followed earlier complaints by the ADC that its lawyers had been unable to obtain the court document.
ADC Complained About Delay Before November 11 Protest
The ADC publicly demanded the judgment’s release in a statement reported on November 9.
The party alleged that its lawyers had applied for certified copies and paid the prescribed fees without receiving the document.
Candidates and supporters subsequently submitted a petition dated November 10, repeating concerns about access to the judgment.
The party argued that the delay complicated its ability to examine the court’s orders and pursue its legal challenge.
However, IDNN has not independently obtained the application, payment records or the court registry’s response.
The claim that the document remained unavailable despite payment is therefore attributed to the ADC and the protesters.
No conclusion has been established that the court deliberately withheld the judgment.
What Did the Federal High Court Decide?
The leadership dispute arose from a challenge involving Nafiu Bala Gombe, a former deputy national chairman of the ADC.
Gombe questioned the process through which the party’s leadership was reorganised following the resignation of former national chairman Ralph Nwosu.
Reports of the November 5 judgment indicate that Justice Peter Lifu ruled against the arrangement that produced the David Mark-led national executive.
Channels Television also reported that the ruling affected decisions taken under the disputed leadership, including the process associated with Atiku Abubakar’s reported presidential nomination.
However, IDNN has not independently examined the authenticated judgment or confirmed the precise scope of its operative orders.
The distinction is important because the legal consequences of a judgment depend on the orders actually made by the court.
ADC Announces Appeal and Seeks Stay of Execution
The ADC announced on November 6 that it had appealed the Federal High Court judgment and applied for a stay of execution.
The party reportedly notified INEC of the proceedings and requested that the commission refrain from consequential action while the appeal and stay application remained pending.
The ADC maintains that the disputed ruling conflicts with an earlier Federal High Court decision which, according to its interpretation, supported the legitimacy of the David Mark-led leadership.
That remains the party’s legal argument rather than a conclusion independently established by this report.
Filing an appeal does not automatically suspend the enforcement of a judgment.
Similarly, applying for a stay of execution does not establish that a court has granted one.
IDNN has not independently established that a stay was granted or that the appeal has been determined.
INEC Says It Will Examine Authenticated Judgment
INEC Chairman, Professor Joash Amupitan, addressed the controversy during a news conference in Abuja on November 9.
According to reports of his remarks, Amupitan said the commission had not received a certified true copy of the judgment.
He explained that INEC would examine the authenticated document and obtain appropriate legal advice before deciding what action, if any, was required.
The statement established INEC’s reported position as of November 9.
It does not establish whether the commission subsequently received the judgment or adopted a new position.
No later formal implementation decision has been independently established in the material reviewed by IDNN.
Aregbesola’s Lawyers Urge INEC to Preserve Leadership Records
Correspondence reportedly sent to INEC on behalf of Rauf Aregbesola, national secretary under the disputed David Mark-led ADC executive, urged the commission not to alter its existing leadership records while appellate proceedings continued.
According to reporting by THISDAY, the letter was written by lawyer Mohammed Sheriff and referred to both the November 5 judgment and an earlier Federal High Court decision delivered by Justice Musa Liman.
The lawyers argued that the earlier judgment supported the legitimacy of the Mark-led leadership arrangement.
That interpretation remains attributed to the lawyers.
Although reports indicate that an acknowledged copy of the correspondence was made available to the News Agency of Nigeria, IDNN has not independently examined the original letter or the judgments.
The correspondence does not, by itself, establish that INEC is legally required to maintain the disputed leadership records.
What Does the Judgment Mean for Atiku’s 2027 Candidacy?
The ruling has raised questions about the ADC’s preparations for the 2027 presidential election and the status of former Vice President Atiku Abubakar’s reported nomination.
Channels Television reported that the judgment affected the process through which Atiku emerged as the party’s presidential candidate.
However, the precise legal consequences cannot be determined without examining the court’s authenticated orders and any subsequent appellate decisions.
A judgment concerning a political party’s leadership does not, by itself, establish that INEC has formally disqualified an individual.
IDNN has not established that INEC has disqualified Atiku or that the judgment’s operative orders conclusively determine his eligibility for the 2027 presidential election.
Any definitive determination would require authenticated judicial and electoral records.
What Happens Next?
The dispute now centres on access to the authenticated judgment, the ADC’s appellate challenge and INEC’s eventual administrative response.
The certified judgment is needed to establish precisely what the Federal High Court ordered.
The outcome of the stay application and subsequent appeal proceedings could affect the legal position of the disputed leadership.
INEC’s next formal decision will also be important in determining how the commission administers the relevant electoral records and processes.
For now, the November 11 protest has brought renewed public attention to the dispute.
The ADC has challenged the judgment and demanded its release, while INEC’s last independently corroborated public position in the reviewed material remains its November 9 statement that it awaited the authenticated document.
