By Luminous Jannamike, Abuja
By the time proceedings ended at the Court of Appeal in Abuja on Wednesday, the sense of anticipation that had filled the courtroom had given way to quiet conversations in the corridors.
Lawyers exchanged handshakes before heading for the car park. Party officials gathered in small groups, comparing notes on what the court’s decision to reserve judgment until July 13 could mean. Some looked disappointed. Others appeared relieved that another legal hurdle had not been crossed, at least not yet.
Outside the courtroom, however, one question lingered long after the lawyers had left. Who really controls the African Democratic Congress (ADC) structures?
The question has become increasingly difficult to answer since the ADC transformed from a little-known political party into the platform around which some of Nigeria’s most prominent opposition figures hope to build a formidable challenge to the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) in 2027.
The Courtroom and the Bigger Question
On paper, the appeal before the Court of Appeal turns on a dispute over who is constitutionally empowered to control the ADC’s state structures. David Mark, the party’s National Chairman, and National Secretary Rauf Aregbesola are asking the appellate court to set aside the Federal High Court’s judgment, which held that the National Working Committee acted outside its powers in dissolving elected State Working Committees.
In that judgment, the court found in favour of the state chairmen, affirming that they remained the party’s duly recognised officials and that, under the ADC Constitution, they, not the National Working Committee, are the organs vested with the authority to organise state congresses and manage the party’s affairs at the state level.
The ruling was welcomed by the Forum of ADC State Chairmen, which described it as a reaffirmation of the party’s constitution rather than a setback for the opposition coalition.
The Mark-led leadership, however, insists the trial court erred in its interpretation of the party’s constitution and has urged the Court of Appeal to overturn the decision, arguing that the restructuring of the party was necessary to accommodate the coalition and reposition the ADC for the 2027 elections.
Why the Structures Matter
But away from the legal arguments, the case has become a contest over something far more valuable than party offices. It is a contest over legitimacy.
Political parties are built on structures. Those structures decide who organises congresses, who prepares for conventions, who mobilises members and, ultimately, who influences candidate selection. In Nigerian politics, control of the grassroots often determines control of the party.
That explains why a disagreement over state executives has grown into one of the most closely watched political cases ahead of the next general election.
But away from the legal arguments, the case has become a contest over something far more valuable than party offices. It is a contest over political leverage.
One senior opposition figure involved in the coalition’s internal consultations dismissed suggestions that the dispute is simply another legitimacy tussle.
“Unlike the NDC lawsuit, the real battle isn’t about the party’s name or logo” he told Saturday Vanguard. “It is over the structures that produce state officers, organise congresses and ultimately decide who flies the party’s flag in 2027. That is where political power truly resides.”
His assessment goes to the heart of the crisis. In every political party, state structures are more than administrative offices. They recruit members, organise congresses, elect delegates and keep the party machinery running between election cycles.
Another party leader who understands the coalition’s behind-the-scenes calculations noted that this is why neither side seems inclined to compromise.
“Who controls the state structures controls the congresses,” he said. “Who controls the congresses often shapes the ticket. That is why this case has attracted so much political attention.”
Viewed from that perspective, the litigation is no longer just about whether elected state executives could be dissolved. It has become part of a wider contest over the political machinery that will shape the ADC’s preparations for the 2027 elections.
How the ADC Became the Coalition’s Vehicle
The dispute also reflects how dramatically the ADC’s fortunes have changed. For years, the party occupied the outer edges of Nigeria’s political landscape. It contested elections, maintained offices across the country and fielded candidates, but it rarely featured in serious conversations about federal power. In the 2023 presidential election, it presented Dumebi Kachikwu as its candidate, yet remained overshadowed by the country’s larger political parties.
Its profile changed after leading opposition figures; including former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar, David Mark, Rauf Aregbesola and other political heavyweights, began searching for a common platform instead of attempting the difficult task of registering a new political party.
The ADC already had what they needed: a recognised place on INEC’s register, nationwide structures and an existing constitution. It offered the quickest route to building a broad opposition alliance.
But what looked like a political breakthrough soon exposed a practical problem. How do newcomers reshape an existing party without alienating the people who built it? That question sits at the centre of the present dispute.
Two Camps, Two Constitutions?
Former ADC presidential candidate Dumebi Kachikwu argues that the coalition overstepped the party’s constitutional boundaries by dismantling elected structures before their tenure expired.
Reacting after the Federal High Court ruled in favour of the state chairmen, Kachikwu said the judgment was not a rejection of the coalition but a defence of the party’s internal democracy.
“The ADC is not for sale,” he said, accusing those behind the restructuring of treating the party like a ‘private political estate.’
He argued that political reform begins with respect for the rules governing political parties themselves.
“You cannot claim to be fighting for democracy while trampling on democracy within your own party,” he said, maintaining that elected officials could not simply be displaced because influential politicians had joined the party.
The Chairman of the Forum of ADC State Chairmen, Kingsley Oggah, has advanced a similar position.
According to Oggah, the state executives went to court not to frustrate the coalition but to protect the party’s constitution from what they believed was an unlawful restructuring.
“That judgment vindicates our position,” he told Saturday Vanguard, insisting that only the party’s constitutionally recognised organs possess the authority to conduct congresses and conventions.
The Mark-led leadership rejects that interpretation. Supporters of the former Senate President argue that transforming the ADC into a credible national platform required organisational reforms capable of accommodating thousands of new members and integrating diverse political interests.
Following a separate Federal High Court judgment that affirmed his leadership in another suit, Mark described the decision as “a victory for democracy, justice and every Nigerian who believes in a vibrant political system where ideas compete freely. Our commitment to building a credible political alternative remains unshaken.”
He urged members to remain focused on the larger political objective, adding that the coalition would continue preparing for 2027 despite the litigation.
Those statements capture the two competing stories now unfolding inside the ADC. One side sees the courts as protecting the party’s constitution. The other sees the courts as clearing the path for a stronger opposition platform.
The Court of Appeal will next Tuesday decide the legal questions before it. Whether its judgment also restores political unity is a very different matter.
More Than One Court Battle
The appeal, however, is only one piece of a much larger legal puzzle. Even before the Court of Appeal set a new judgment date, the ADC had already become the focus of several court cases, each addressing a different facet of the party’s internal crisis. This has allowed opposing factions to claim triumph after each ruling and has made it hard for many supporters to tell the cases apart.
The state chairmen rely on the Federal High Court’s judgment which held that the National Working Committee lacked the constitutional authority to dissolve elected state executives or assume powers reserved for them under the party’s constitution, including the organisation of state congresses.
The Mark-led leadership, on the other hand, points to a separate Federal High Court decision which affirmed the legitimacy of the current national leadership after dismissing a challenge brought against it. Supporters of the coalition argue that the two cases address different legal questions and should not be confused.
That distinction has become central to the political messaging from both camps. While Kachikwu and the state executives argue that the courts have protected the party’s constitutional order, Mark’s supporters maintain that the coalition itself remains firmly on legal ground and is continuing preparations for the 2027 elections.
For ordinary party members, however, the finer points of the litigation matter less than a simpler question: who will ultimately control the structures that determine the party’s future?
That explains why both camps have continued to claim that the law is on their side.
For Dumebi Kachikwu and the state chairmen, the litigation is about preserving the identity of a party they say existed long before the coalition arrived. They argue that welcoming influential politicians should not mean discarding the constitution that has guided the party for years. In their telling, this is less a rebellion against the coalition than a warning that political expediency should never replace due process.
David Mark’s supporters see the picture differently. They argue that the coalition inherited a party with national registration but limited electoral reach. If it was to become a serious challenger in 2027, they say, it needed to be reorganised quickly enough to absorb new members, harmonise state structures and prepare for the demanding electoral calendar ahead. From that perspective, the restructuring was not a hostile takeover but a practical necessity.
It is this clash of perspectives that has made compromise so elusive. Neither side believes it is fighting for personal advantage alone. Each insists it is defending the future of the party.
Beyond the Courtroom
That is also why many experienced politicians are resisting the temptation to dismiss the crisis as another routine leadership quarrel. They have seen similar dramas before. After losing power in 2015, the Peoples Democratic Party became trapped in years of litigation over its national leadership. Court orders, caretaker committees and parallel conventions often dominated headlines that should have been about rebuilding the party.
More recently, the Labour Party found itself grappling with leadership disputes just as it was trying to convert its electoral momentum into a lasting political organisation.
The lesson from those experiences is neither comforting nor complicated. Winning public sympathy is one thing. Building a durable political institution is another.
Opposition coalitions are often born out of a common objective: to challenge the government of the day. But once the excitement of the launch fades, more difficult questions emerge. Who controls the party machinery? Who decides the rules? How are old members accommodated alongside powerful newcomers? Those questions rarely command television headlines, yet they often determine whether a coalition survives beyond its first major test.
The ADC has now reached that stage. The coming weeks will reveal more than the outcome of an appeal. They will show whether the party can persuade disappointed factions that there is still room for negotiation after the judges have spoken. Court victories may settle points of law, but they rarely heal political distrust.
That reality matters beyond the ADC. Nigeria’s democracy depends not only on competitive elections but also on credible political parties capable of offering voters genuine alternatives. When opposition parties spend more time contesting authority within their own ranks than presenting ideas to the electorate, the political conversation narrows and voters are left with fewer meaningful choices.
The APC understands this dynamic. Every week the opposition devotes to internal litigation is a week the governing party can spend consolidating its structures, managing competing interests and preparing for the next electoral contest. Whether that advantage proves decisive in 2027 will depend on many factors, but few doubt that organisation remains one of the ruling party’s greatest strengths.
For the ADC, therefore, the courtroom is only one front in a much larger struggle. The harder task begins after the legal arguments end. It is the task of convincing party members that constitutional order and political expansion do not have to be mutually exclusive. It is the task of proving that a coalition assembled from different traditions, ambitions and personalities can develop the discipline required of a governing alternative.
Soon enough, the Appeal Court will deliver its judgment. Lawyers will pack their files. Supporters on both sides will claim vindication. New statements will be issued and fresh political calculations will begin.
But when the crowds leave the courthouse and the television cameras move on, one question will remain.Can a coalition that wants Nigerians to trust it with power first persuade its own members to trust one another?
That answer will not be found in any court judgment. It will be written in the choices the party makes long after the judges have had the final word.
