By James Ogunnaike, Abeokuta
A former member of the House of Representatives and legal practitioner, Kayode Oladele, has warned that former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, could be excluded from the 2027 presidential ballot, if the Federal High Court judgment nullifying the leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), led by Senator David Mark, is upheld on appeal.
Oladele said the judgment, delivered on Thursday by Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court, Abuja, raises serious legal questions about the validity of decisions taken by the disputed leadership of the party, particularly its conduct of presidential primaries and the nomination of candidates for the 2027 general election.
He said the implications of the judgment should also be examined against the backdrop of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Zenith Labour Party v. Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), delivered on September 24, 2026.
According to him, although the two cases arose from different circumstances, they underscore the importance of strict compliance with statutory requirements governing political parties and the nomination of candidates for elections.
Oladele said he had repeatedly cautioned the ADC against allowing its internal leadership crisis to persist, warning that conducting party affairs through a disputed leadership structure could expose its decisions, including candidate nominations, to legal challenges.
“I have consistently warned the ADC about the grave legal consequences of its internal leadership crisis and the danger of conducting party affairs through a disputed leadership structure. Unfortunately, the party now faces the very legal complications I have repeatedly cautioned against,” he said.
He added that the consequences of the latest judgment went beyond the removal or nullification of the positions occupied by Senator David Mark and other national officers of the party.
“The fundamental question is whether a leadership structure declared unlawful by a competent court could validly conduct presidential primaries and nominate candidates for a general election,” he stated.
Explaining the relevance of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Zenith Labour Party case, Oladele said the apex court had affirmed the constitutionality of Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026, thereby recognising the authority of the legislature to prescribe binding requirements for political parties, particularly regarding membership registers and candidate nomination procedures.
He said one of the most significant aspects of the judgment was the Supreme Court’s distinction between the personal qualification of a candidate and the legal eligibility of the political party sponsoring that candidate.
“In the Zenith Labour Party case, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026. The apex court affirmed that the legislature could prescribe binding requirements governing party membership registers and the procedures for nominating candidates,” he said.
“Of particular importance is the Supreme Court’s distinction between the personal qualification of an individual candidate and the legal eligibility of the political party sponsoring that candidate.
“The court made it clear that the statutory consequence of noncompliance with the relevant membership register requirements operates against the political party’s eligibility to field candidates. In other words, a candidate’s personal qualification cannot independently overcome a statutory disability affecting the sponsoring party.”
Oladele argued that the principle was relevant to the ADC’s current predicament because the validity of a candidate’s nomination could be affected by defects in the authority of the party officials responsible for conducting the nomination process.
He explained that while the defect in the Zenith Labour Party case concerned compliance with statutory membership register requirements, the ADC controversy centred on the legality of the party leadership and the authority under which it exercised the party’s nomination powers.
According to him, both situations raise broader questions about whether a political party has complied with the legal requirements necessary to validly sponsor candidates for elective offices.
He, however, cautioned against treating the two judgments as identical or suggesting that the Supreme Court had already determined the outcome of the ADC leadership dispute.
“The two cases must not be confused. The Supreme Court determined the constitutional validity of specific provisions of the Electoral Act, while the Federal High Court has now ruled on the legality of the ADC leadership and its decisions,” he said.
“Nevertheless, both cases demonstrate the potentially serious electoral consequences of defects affecting political parties’ nomination processes.”
The former lawmaker maintained that if the judgment invalidating the authority of the officials who conducted the ADC primaries is sustained, the resulting nomination could face a substantial legal challenge.
He stressed that the position could change if the judgment were successfully overturned on appeal or the legal issues were otherwise resolved in accordance with the law.
“That is why Atiku Abubakar may ultimately not appear on the presidential ballot if the judgment of the Federal High Court is sustained on appeal,” Oladele warned.
He also dismissed the assumption that the earlier publication of Atiku’s name by the Independent National Electoral Commission automatically guarantees his participation in the 2027 presidential election.
According to him, INEC’s publication of a candidate’s name does not insulate the nomination from subsequent judicial scrutiny or prevent a court from determining whether the process through which the candidate emerged was legally valid.
“INEC’s publication of a candidate’s name does not confer immunity against a subsequent judicial determination invalidating the nomination process. The Commission is bound to act in accordance with the Constitution, the Electoral Act and applicable judicial orders,” he said.
Oladele urged political parties to take internal democracy, leadership legitimacy and compliance with electoral laws more seriously, warning that unresolved internal disputes could undermine their electoral prospects and jeopardise the ambitions of their candidates.
He said political parties must understand that internal leadership arrangements are not merely administrative matters, but can have far-reaching implications for the validity of decisions taken in the name of the party.
“The ADC must now address the legal consequences of the judgment rather than assume that political declarations can substitute for compliance with the law,” he said.
Reiterating the significance of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Zenith Labour Party case, Oladele said the law recognises a fundamental distinction between the qualification of an individual candidate and the legal capacity of the political party to sponsor that candidate.
He maintained that Atiku’s political experience, public standing and personal eligibility could not, on their own, cure any legal defect in the process through which the ADC nominated him.
“Atiku’s political standing, experience or personal eligibility cannot, by itself, validate a nomination process that has been judicially invalidated.