By Bose
Kindly share:
The Presidency has distanced President Bola Tinubu and the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) from the deepening leadership crisis in the African Democratic Congress (ADC), insisting that neither the President nor his party was responsible for the latest court ruling against the Senator David Mark-led leadership.
At the same time, the Presidency has called on the National Judicial Council (NJC) to urgently intervene over what it described as conflicting judicial pronouncements on the ADC leadership dispute, warning that contradictory decisions by courts of equal jurisdiction could undermine public confidence in the judiciary.
The position was made known on Thursday by Temitope Ajayi, Senior Special Assistant to President Tinubu on Media and Publicity, in a statement published on his X account following the judgment of the Federal High Court in Abuja nullifying the Mark-led ADC leadership.
Ajayi argued that the emergence of conflicting judgments over the same leadership dispute raised serious concerns about judicial discipline, consistency and the integrity of the judicial process.
He maintained that where a court had already delivered judgment on a matter, an aggrieved party should pursue an appeal before a higher court rather than initiate another proceeding before a court of coordinate jurisdiction.
“The National Judicial Council (NJC) must urgently address the growing concern over judicial discipline and the integrity of the bench. Nothing damages public confidence in the judiciary more than courts of equal jurisdiction issuing contradictory rulings on the same matter,” he stated.
The presidential aide also dismissed allegations by ADC members and sympathisers that Tinubu and the APC masterminded the latest judgment to destabilise the opposition party and frustrate its political ambitions ahead of the 2027 general elections.
Instead, he attributed the crisis to what he described as political miscalculations by former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and his associates, arguing that they joined the ADC without adequately investigating its existing leadership dispute.
According to Ajayi, the internal disagreement predated the entry of Atiku and other opposition figures into the party, making attempts to implicate the Presidency in the unfolding controversy unjustified.
“Neither President Tinubu nor the APC created this problem. The unforced errors and poor political judgment of former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and his political associates are at the heart of the present predicament,” he said.
Ajayi further accused Atiku of applying double standards in his attitude towards judicial intervention, alleging that the former vice president readily embraced legal processes when they could advance his political interests but portrayed the judiciary as compromised when decisions went against him.
He cited Atiku’s legal and public relations efforts in Nigeria and the United States to challenge Tinubu’s eligibility for the 2027 presidential election, arguing that it was contradictory to pursue judicial intervention against a political opponent while questioning the integrity of the courts when an unfavourable ruling affected one’s own ambition.
“In other words, Atiku has no difficulty deploying judicial intervention as a political weapon when the objective is to keep his principal opponent off the ballot. However, when judicial pronouncements threaten his own political ambitions, the same process suddenly becomes evidence of conspiracy and persecution,” Ajayi stated.
He insisted that the rule of law must be respected irrespective of whose political interests are affected, stressing that judicial decisions should neither be celebrated nor condemned solely on the basis of their political consequences.
The Presidency’s reaction followed Thursday’s judgment by Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court, Abuja, in a suit filed by Nafiu Bala Gombe, a former ADC National Deputy Chairman representing the North-East.
Gombe had challenged the process through which the Mark-led Caretaker Committee assumed control of the party following the resignation of its former National Chairman, Ralph Nwosu.
The plaintiff argued that he was constitutionally entitled to assume the party’s leadership and challenged the emergence of Mark and former Osun State Governor, Rauf Aregbesola, as National Chairman and National Secretary, respectively.
He contended that the process violated the ADC constitution and relevant provisions of the Electoral Act, asking the court to invalidate decisions taken by the Mark-led leadership.
Justice Lifu upheld the plaintiff’s case and granted the reliefs sought, effectively nullifying the Mark-led leadership structure and actions taken by the committee.
The ruling has cast fresh uncertainty over the ADC’s preparations for the 2027 general elections, particularly the legitimacy of its leadership and the presidential nomination process that produced Atiku as its flag bearer.
With the affected faction expected to challenge the decision, the unfolding legal battle has opened another front in the opposition party’s struggle to resolve its internal leadership crisis and consolidate its position ahead of the next general elections.
Also, a chieftain of the ADC in Imo State, broadcaster, Chinonso Uba, popularly known as Nonso Nkwa, dismissed the judgment, arguing that the latest judgment would neither destabilise the party nor weaken the party’s determination to participate effectively in the 2027 general elections.
Writing on Facebook: “This is not the first time a High Court is sacking the national leadership of our great party, only for the Court of Appeal to squash such a judgment.”
He added that the ruling could not derail the ADC’s political ambitions, describing the development as further evidence of the ruling party’s apprehension over the growing strength of the opposition platform.
“Today’s judgment won’t make ADC go gaga; rather, it is another testimony that the ruling party is afraid of ADC,” he declared.
Uba further assured party members and supporters that the ADC would challenge the decision through the appellate process, expressing confidence that the outcome would be similar to that of the earlier legal battle.
“We shall go back to that same Appeal Court that squashed the earlier judgment and get this one squashed too,” he added.
