Atiku: A Political Veteran Caught In An Avoidable Crisis
By Peter Omoneyi
There is a painful irony unfolding in Nigeria’s opposition politics. A political movement that emerged with the ambition of unseating President Bola Ahmed Tinubu in 2027 is now struggling to keep its own presidential candidate on the ballot.
The African Democratic Congress (ADC), which many opposition figures embraced as a vehicle for building a formidable coalition against the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), is suddenly battling a crisis that threatens to undermine the very purpose for which the coalition was assembled.
At the centre of this unfolding drama is former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar, a veteran politician who has spent decades pursuing the Nigerian presidency.
For Atiku, the challenge is no longer simply how to defeat Tinubu. It is how to survive the internal political and legal complications of the party expected to deliver him to Aso Rock.
The situation is increasingly embarrassing for the ADC. The opposition movement that began with the popular political sentiment of “Tinubu Must Go” is now consumed by a different question: Can Atiku remain the ADC’s presidential candidate?
And the uncomfortable truth is that the immediate problem did not originate in the APC. It emerged from a dispute within the ADC itself.
When prominent opposition figures began rallying around the ADC, the political calculation appeared straightforward.
Nigeria needed a stronger opposition capable of challenging the ruling party, consolidating dissatisfied voters and offering an alternative direction ahead of the 2027 presidential election.
The coalition attracted considerable attention because of the political weight of its leading figures, including Atiku Abubakar, former Senate President David Mark, former Osun State Governor Rauf Aregbesola and other influential political actors.
The expectation was that the ADC would provide a common platform where opposition interests could be harmonised and a credible presidential candidate could emerge through an acceptable political process.
Atiku eventually emerged as the party’s presidential flag bearer following its May 2026 primary.
That development appeared to give the coalition a clear direction.
However, beneath the public display of political unity, a leadership dispute was already developing. The disagreement surrounding the emergence of the David Mark-led leadership would eventually become a major legal obstacle to the party’s presidential ambitions.
What was supposed to be a vehicle for political rescue is now struggling with questions about its own legitimacy.
The controversy centres on Nafiu Bala Gombe, a former Deputy National Chairman of the ADC, who challenged the legitimacy of the leadership arrangement that brought David Mark and Rauf Aregbesola into their respective positions as National Chairman and National Secretary.
Bala maintained that he had not resigned from his position and disputed a resignation letter dated May 17, 2025, which the Mark-led faction relied upon to argue that he had voluntarily relinquished his office.
The document, tendered before the court as Exhibit ADC-1, became a critical piece of evidence in the dispute.
Bala insisted that the signature attributed to him was not genuine.
The matter eventually reached the Federal High Court in Abuja, where Justice Peter Lifu delivered a significant judgment on November 5, 2026.
In examining the disputed document, the judge compared the signature on the purported resignation letter with signatures appearing on Bala’s sworn court statements.
His conclusion was damaging to the ADC leadership’s position.
The judge found material differences between the signatures and held that the disputed document could not be accepted as reliable evidence that Bala had voluntarily resigned.
He also explained an important legal principle: certifying a document as a true copy does not automatically establish that the person named in it actually signed it.
This finding weakened one of the central arguments used by the Mark-led faction to justify the leadership transition.
But the implications did not end there.
The court’s decision went beyond rejecting the disputed resignation letter.
Justice Lifu also examined the process through which the new ADC leadership emerged at the party’s 99th National Executive Committee meeting held on July 29, 2025.
A major issue was compliance with Section 82(3) of the Electoral Act 2022, which provides for democratic elections in the process of electing political party executives or governing bodies.
The court held that the defendants had failed to establish that the process through which the new leadership emerged satisfied the applicable requirements for democratic elections.
It further made clear that INEC’s attendance or monitoring of a political party meeting could not, by itself, establish that a lawful election had taken place.
This is a particularly important aspect of the judgment.
Political parties are private organisations in many respects, but their internal leadership arrangements and candidate-selection processes must comply with relevant constitutional and statutory requirements.
A party cannot simply rely on political agreements, influential personalities or administrative recognition to bypass applicable legal procedures.
Consequently, the court invalidated the Mark-led leadership arrangement and the decisions taken under it, including the process that produced Atiku as the ADC’s presidential candidate for 2027.
That is the real danger confronting Atiku.
His problem is not that a court has permanently barred him from contesting the presidency. Rather, the legal foundation of the particular party nomination on which he was relying has been seriously undermined.
There is a significant difference between those two situations, and it is important not to confuse them.
For months, the ADC’s political messaging has centred on the need to remove President Tinubu from office.
The ruling party has been criticised over economic hardship, fuel subsidy removal, rising living costs, insecurity and the difficulties confronting ordinary Nigerians.
These are legitimate issues for an opposition party to raise, interrogate and campaign on.
But an opposition party seeking to convince Nigerians that it can govern the country must first demonstrate that it can govern its own affairs responsibly.
That is where the ADC is facing a credibility problem.
How can a political organisation promise Nigerians democratic accountability when its own leadership structure is being challenged over compliance with democratic procedures?
How can it campaign on the rule of law while struggling to resolve a dispute involving the authenticity of a document central to its leadership transition?
And how can it present itself as a credible alternative to the APC when its presidential campaign is entangled in avoidable internal litigation?
These are questions the party cannot answer merely by accusing the ruling government of political interference.
The ADC and its supporters may have legitimate concerns about the political environment surrounding the case. They may also argue that the judgment is part of a wider attempt to weaken the opposition.
However, such allegations do not automatically invalidate a judicial decision.
The party must address the specific legal issues raised by the judgment.
Tinubu may remain ADC’s principal political opponent, but the party’s immediate challenge is coming from within its own organisational structure.
Atiku Abubakar is not an ordinary political newcomer.
He served as Nigeria’s Vice-President between 1999 and 2007 and has remained one of the most recognisable figures in the country’s political landscape.
His presidential ambitions have survived several political realignments, party defections, internal disagreements and electoral setbacks.
He contested the presidency under the Action Congress in 2007, the Peoples Democratic Party in 2011, 2019 and 2023, among other political engagements, before securing the ADC ticket for the 2027 contest.
His experience, national political network and longstanding support base make him a formidable political figure.
However, political experience cannot compensate for a defective nomination process.
Elections are not won by reputation alone. Candidates need functioning political parties, credible structures, effective campaign organisations and nominations that can withstand legal scrutiny.
Atiku’s greatest immediate disadvantage is that he now has to spend valuable political time dealing with a party crisis instead of concentrating fully on persuading Nigerians to support his presidential ambition.
While the ruling APC is preparing its political machinery for another electoral contest, the ADC is preoccupied with defending the legitimacy of its leadership and the decisions that produced its presidential candidate.
That is a serious strategic disadvantage.
It would be premature to declare Atiku’s presidential ambition completely finished.
The Federal High Court’s judgment is a major setback, but the legal process has not necessarily reached its final destination.
The ADC has already filed a notice of appeal against the judgment and also sought a stay of execution pending the determination of the appeal.
This means the matter remains subject to further judicial consideration.
The Court of Appeal could affirm, vary or overturn the decision, depending on the arguments and evidence presented before it. Further recourse to the Supreme Court may also be available where the applicable legal requirements are satisfied.
It is equally important to understand that the judgment did not personally disqualify Atiku Abubakar from participating in Nigerian politics or permanently prohibit him from seeking the presidency.
What it invalidated was the leadership arrangement and the nomination process undertaken under that leadership.
Nevertheless, the consequences are substantial.
The 2027 election timetable leaves political parties with limited room for prolonged internal disputes. Every legal setback creates uncertainty for candidates, supporters, campaign coordinators and potential political partners.
Even if the ADC eventually secures a favourable appellate decision, the time and political energy spent on the dispute may have consequences for its electoral preparations.
A presidential campaign needs momentum. It cannot thrive indefinitely in a courtroom.
One of the greatest mistakes political organisations make is assuming that the strength of their political objectives can excuse weaknesses in their internal processes.
The ADC may have attracted prominent politicians because of their shared opposition to the Tinubu administration. But a coalition is not sustained by common enemies alone.
It requires trust, clear rules, transparent leadership arrangements and respect for internal democracy.
Political alliances built around personalities rather than institutions often struggle when competing interests emerge.
The current crisis raises an important question about how the ADC leadership managed its transition and whether sufficient attention was paid to the legal requirements governing party administration.
If the disputed resignation letter was central to establishing the legitimacy of the leadership transition, why was its authenticity not adequately verified before it became part of the party’s official position?
Why was the process not structured in a manner that would minimise the possibility of legal challenges?
And why should a presidential candidate of Atiku’s political standing be left to bear the consequences of an internal administrative controversy?
These are not questions that can be dismissed as political propaganda.
They deserve serious answers from the party’s leadership.
The ADC now faces a defining moment.
Its first responsibility should be to examine the judgment objectively, strengthen its legal position and ensure that every future action complies with the party’s constitution and applicable electoral laws.
If the appellate courts uphold the judgment, the party will have to consider the lawful options available to resolve its leadership crisis and address the implications for its candidate-selection process.
If the judgment is overturned, the party must still take steps to restore confidence in its internal administration and demonstrate that its political structures are beyond avoidable legal controversy.
Either way, the lesson is clear: political legitimacy must be supported by procedural legitimacy.
Atiku also faces an important strategic decision. He must determine how best to protect his political interests without allowing the crisis to consume the remainder of his 2027 preparations.
His supporters may continue to express confidence in his chances, but confidence alone cannot replace a legally defensible nomination.
Perhaps the most striking irony of the ADC crisis is how dramatically its political conversation has changed.
The movement began with a message directed at the presidency.
Its supporters wanted to build a coalition strong enough to challenge Tinubu and offer Nigerians a different political direction.
Today, however, the party is fighting to resolve a crisis that threatens the candidacy of the very man expected to lead that challenge.
Tinubu remains President. The APC remains the ruling party. And Atiku, instead of enjoying an uninterrupted presidential campaign, is caught in the uncertainty surrounding his party’s legal and organisational future.
The opposition’s biggest challenge should be convincing Nigerians that it has the ideas, competence and national appeal to govern.
Instead, the ADC is being forced to defend its own internal arrangements.
This is not merely an embarrassment for Atiku or David Mark. It is a setback for the broader opposition project and a troubling development for those who hoped the ADC would become a credible alternative political platform.
WHO WILL RESCUE ATIKU’S 2027 AMBITION?
Atiku’s presidential ambition is not necessarily dead, but it has suffered a serious blow.
The Federal High Court judgment has exposed weaknesses in the ADC’s leadership transition and placed the party’s presidential nomination under a cloud of legal uncertainty.
The ADC may blame political opponents. It may challenge the judgment in higher courts. It may insist that its leadership acted in good faith.
But the party must recognise that political survival requires more than accusations and public statements.
It requires discipline, accountability, transparency and strict compliance with the law.
Atiku deserves the opportunity to contest on a credible political platform. His supporters deserve clarity. And Nigerians deserve an opposition that can offer more than internal disputes and political slogans.
The ADC was supposed to be the vehicle through which opposition forces could challenge Tinubu in 2027.
Instead, it risks becoming the biggest obstacle to its own presidential candidate.
The lesson is unmistakable: You cannot build a credible opposition movement on an uncertain foundation and expect it to withstand the pressure of a presidential election.
The battle cry may have started as “Tinubu Must Go.”
But the question now confronting the ADC is far more urgent:
Can Atiku stay in the race, and can the ADC put its house in order before it is too late?
History will judge not only the political ambitions of its leaders but also the decisions they make at this critical moment.
Patrick Omoneyi
Public Commentator
