The leadership crisis rocking the African Democratic Congress has escalated into the most complex political party dispute in Nigeria’s democratic history with three rival factions advancing competing constitutional claims, the Independent National Electoral Commission refusing to recognise any of them, multiple courts handling interrelated cases at every level of the judiciary, and the party’s capacity to function as a viable opposition platform ahead of the 2027 general elections now in serious doubt.
The dispute, which began as an internal transition disagreement in mid-2025, has now evolved into a multi-dimensional legal, political, and institutional standoff that has drawn in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, multiple Federal High Court judges, state high courts, INEC, international diplomats, and every major opposition political figure in Nigeria — while raising fundamental questions about the independence of the electoral commission, the integrity of the judiciary, and whether Nigeria’s democratic space is being deliberately contracted by the ruling party.
What distinguishes the ADC crisis from other party disputes is the emergence of not two but three distinct factions, each claiming constitutional legitimacy and each dismissing the others as usurpers.
The Mark-led faction the most prominent of the three insists it emerged through due process, citing a series of National Executive Committee decisions in 2025 including the July 29 ratification of a caretaker leadership. Relying on Article 13 of the ADC Constitution, the group argues that the NEC is empowered to administer the party, implement convention decisions, and establish interim structures where necessary. It contends that the two-year membership requirement under Article 9(4) was lawfully waived through NEC resolutions to accommodate coalition-building efforts, and that INEC’s initial recognition of its leadership in September 2025 affirms its legitimacy.
The Mark faction held a national convention on April 14, 2026, at the Rainbow Event Centre in Abuja without INEC monitoring ratified its National Working Committee, expelled Gombe and lawmaker Leke Abejide, and declared itself an unstoppable political force.
The Gombe faction maintains that the entire process that produced the Mark leadership is unconstitutional. It argues that the appointments violated Article 9(4) on eligibility and Article 8(2) on proper ward-level membership registration, insisting that key figures in the Mark camp did not meet basic requirements for holding national office. Gombe contends that as Deputy National Chairman, he automatically assumed the position of Acting National Chairman following the leadership vacuum created by Ralph Nwosu’s departure. He has anchored his claim on the Court of Appeal’s March 12 order directing parties to maintain the “status quo ante bellum.”
The Kachikwu faction a “third force” backed by approximately 25 state chairmen has rejected both the Mark and Gombe claims as legally defective and procedurally flawed. This group argues that neither faction complied with constitutional requirements, particularly on eligibility and membership. It contends that key decisions, including the formation of caretaker structures, were not ratified by a properly constituted NEC as defined under Article 12, which includes state chairmen as critical members. The Kachikwu bloc has constituted its own interim leadership, endorsed INEC’s derecognition of the rival factions, and warned that the April 14 convention is null and void.
INEC’s April 1 decision to withdraw recognition from both the Mark and Gombe factions citing the Court of Appeal’s status quo order has effectively frozen the party’s operations.
The commission removed Mark and Aregbesola’s names from its portal, announced it would not engage with any faction pending a final judicial determination, and refused to monitor the April 14 convention.
INEC Chairman Professor Joash Amupitan warned that holding the convention could attract “grave legal consequences” and insisted the commission’s decision was anchored on a subsisting court order, not arbitrary discretion.
“If they are going ahead with their convention, it’s left for them to look at whether it is in contravention of the court. INEC didn’t just take a decision. We didn’t just wake up one day and took this decision. There was something that led to it. There was an order of court,” Amupitan stated.
However, the ADC and opposition analysts have accused INEC of partisanship, arguing the commission is “allowing itself to be used by the ruling APC to destabilise opposition parties ahead of 2027.”
The ADC’s national secretary, Aregbesola, presented a detailed legal argument at the convention that INEC had no lawful basis to boycott the event, citing Section 82 of the Electoral Act which provides that the only condition that invalidates a convention is failure to notify INEC a requirement the party says it fulfilled on March 17 with acknowledged receipt.
The ADC’s decision to hold its convention without INEC has drawn immediate comparisons to the PDP’s Ibadan convention of November 15-16, 2025, which was subsequently nullified by the Court of Appeal a parallel that raises the question of whether the ADC convention faces the same fate.
However, there is a critical distinction that ADC defenders emphasise.
In the PDP’s case, two Federal High Court judges Justice James Omotosho and Justice Peter Lifu handed down express orders stopping the Ibadan convention before it took place. The PDP proceeded despite these specific restraining orders, and the Court of Appeal subsequently nullified the convention on that basis.
In the ADC’s case, no court gave an express order stopping the April 14 convention. The only relevant judicial directive was the Court of Appeal’s general order for parties to “maintain the status quo ante bellum” an order whose meaning and scope has been disputed by all parties.
A court order reportedly seeking to stop the ADC convention was reported by media only after the convention had already taken place meaning the ADC leadership could argue it had no knowledge of the order before proceeding.
This distinction may prove decisive when the convention’s validity is inevitably challenged in court. Legal analysts note that disobedience of a specific court order restraining a convention is a clearer ground for nullification than proceeding under a general status quo order whose interpretation is itself in dispute.
The ADC crisis has become a focal point for broader concerns about the independence of Nigeria’s electoral and judicial institutions.