Annulled ADC congresses: Weep not for Mark, Aregbesola, Obi, Atiku, others
In the ever-evolving theatre of Nigerian politics, the recent Federal High Court judgment barring the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising congresses organised by the Senator David Mark-led caretaker
- By Samson Onabanjo
In the ever-evolving theatre of Nigerian politics, the recent Federal High Court judgment barring the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising congresses organised by the Senator David Mark-led caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) goes beyond a legal setback, it is a revealing moment of reckoning. For many of the opposition figures now caught in the storm—David Mark, Rauf Aregbesola, Peter Obi, and Atiku Abubakar, the temptation may be to cast blame outward. But a more honest appraisal suggests something far less convenient: they are, in many respects, architects of their own political misfortune.
The court’s decision, delivered by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, reaffirmed a fundamental democratic principle, that internal party processes must adhere strictly to constitutional provisions. By ruling that only duly elected state executive committees have the authority to conduct congresses, the court did more than nullify a flawed process; it exposed a troubling pattern of impunity that has long defined segments of Nigeria’s opposition politics.
For years, many of these political heavyweights have thrived in a system where internal democracy is often sacrificed at the altar of expediency. Party constitutions become flexible documents, bent to suit immediate ambitions. Caretaker committees, originally intended as temporary stabilising mechanisms, are routinely weaponised to sideline legitimate party structures. The ADC crisis is simply the latest manifestation of this entrenched culture.
It is therefore disingenuous to portray the court’s intervention as an external sabotage or, as some have subtly implied, the handiwork of the ruling party. The truth is far less conspiratorial. The judiciary responded to a clear breach of constitutional order within the party. Aggrieved members approached the court, armed with provisions of both the 1999 Constitution and the ADC’s own governing document. The verdict was predictable because the violation was evident.
What makes this episode particularly instructive is the calibre of individuals involved. These are not political novices unfamiliar with democratic norms. They are seasoned actors—former governors, ministers, and presidential candidates, who have, at various times, positioned themselves as champions of democracy and good governance. Yet, when confronted with the opportunity to model those values within their own party, they faltered.
Take the reliance on a caretaker committee to organise state congresses. This move, now invalidated, was a procedural oversight; a calculated attempt to centralise control and influence outcomes. It reflects a broader tendency among political elites to prioritise dominance over due process. In doing so, they inadvertently undermine the very institutions they later seek to rely on for legitimacy.
The irony is striking. Many of these figures have built their national appeal on narratives of reform, promising to strengthen institutions, uphold the rule of law, and deepen democratic practice. Yet, their internal party conduct often tells a different story. It is this contradiction that lies at the heart of their current predicament.
Rather than accept responsibility, however, there is a growing inclination to externalise blame. The ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and President Bola Ahmed Tinubu have, in some quarters, been subtly cast as antagonists in this unfolding drama. But this line of argument collapses under scrutiny. There is no credible evidence to suggest that the APC orchestrated the ADC’s internal crisis or influenced the court’s judgment. To suggest otherwise is to diminish the agency, and accountability of the opposition actors themselves.
More importantly, such deflection distracts from the real issue: the urgent need for internal reform within opposition parties. If the ADC episode teaches anything, it is that sustainable political success cannot be built on shaky institutional foundations. Parties that disregard their own rules cannot credibly demand adherence to national laws. Leaders who manipulate internal processes cannot convincingly advocate for electoral integrity.
This is not merely a moral argument; it is a strategic one. As Nigeria approaches the 2027 general elections, the opposition faces a critical test of coherence and credibility. Voters are increasingly discerning, less swayed by rhetoric and more attentive to track records. A party embroiled in internal disputes, court battles, and leadership controversies will struggle to present itself as a viable alternative to the incumbent government.
The ADC, in particular, had positioned itself as a potential coalition platform—a gathering point for disaffected political actors seeking to challenge the status quo. But coalition politics requires discipline, mutual respect, and adherence to agreed rules. Without these, alliances quickly degenerate into arenas of contestation and mistrust.
The annulment of the congresses is therefore not just a legal setback; it is a warning signal. It underscores the limits of political maneuvering in the face of constitutional scrutiny. It also highlights the judiciary’s willingness to intervene when party actions cross legal boundaries, a development that should, in theory, strengthen democratic accountability. Yet, the broader question remains: will the affected actors learn from this episode?
Unfortunately, history offers limited grounds for optimism. Nigerian politics has often been cyclical, with lessons learned in one moment quickly forgotten in the next. The temptation to revert to familiar patterns, centralised control, opaque processes, and elite bargaining, remains strong.
Read Also: Nigeria, Ghana strengthen ties against drug trafficking cartels
In this context, the ADC crisis is both a cautionary tale and a call to action. It reminds political actors that democracy is not merely about contesting elections; it is about building institutions that can withstand scrutiny and command public trust.
For David Mark and his associates, the path forward requires more than legal appeals or political rhetoric. It demands a fundamental reassessment of how power is exercised within their ranks. It requires acknowledging that the era of impunity, where rules can be bent without consequence, is gradually giving way to a more accountable order.
Ultimately, the court’s judgment should not be seen as an attack but as an affirmation of democratic principles. It reinforces the idea that no individual or group is above the rules that govern collective action.
So, weep not for Mark, Aregbesola, Obi, Atiku, and others. Their current challenges are not the product of external persecution but the inevitable outcome of internal contradictions. The sooner this reality is embraced, the sooner meaningful reform can begin.
Samson Onabanjo, writes from Sagamu, Ogun State
