ADC Leadership Crisis: Why Two Federal High Court Judgments Do Not Conflict – Obono-Obla

Okoi Obono-Obla

ADC Leadership Crisis: Why Two Federal High Court Judgments Do Not Conflict – Obono-Obla

By Newstrends Correspondent

A former Special Assistant to the President and legal practitioner, Okoi Obono-Obla, has dismissed claims that two recent Federal High Court judgments on the leadership crisis rocking the African Democratic Congress (ADC) are conflicting, insisting that the cases involved different plaintiffs, legal issues and reliefs.

Obono-Obla said the reaction of the ADC National Publicity Secretary, Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi, to the judgment delivered by Justice Peter Lifu on November 5, 2026, had introduced what he described as a misleading narrative into the public domain.

In a legal commentary titled “No Conflict of Judgments: Setting the Record Straight on the Two Federal High Court Decisions on ADC Leadership,” Obono-Obla argued that the judgment in the suit filed by Nafiu Bala Gombe against the ADC and four others was fundamentally different from an earlier ruling delivered by Justice Musa Liman.

The controversy followed a statement by the ADC, titled “Lifu Judgment: APC Wants to Set Nigeria on Fire,” in which the party reportedly questioned the latest judgment on the grounds that another Federal High Court had previously ruled on the party’s leadership dispute.

However, Obono-Obla maintained that the two cases were separate legal proceedings and should not be treated as contradictory decisions.

He explained that the first case, Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1637/2025, was instituted by Hon. Leke Joseph Abejide, a serving member of the House of Representatives, who challenged the emergence of Senator David Mark and Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola as the ADC National Chairman and National Secretary, respectively.

According to him, Justice Liman, in his judgment delivered on July 2, 2026, dismissed Abejide’s suit for lacking merit, holding that the matter concerned the internal affairs of the political party.

Obono-Obla said the second case, Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025, was instituted by Nafiu Bala Gombe, who was the ADC’s elected National Deputy Chairman (North-East).

He explained that Gombe’s argument was based on the party’s constitution, particularly the succession procedure following the resignation of its former National Chairman, Chief Ralph Nwosu.

According to Obono-Obla, Gombe contended that the ADC constitution provided a mechanism through which he should have assumed the position of Acting National Chairman following Nwosu’s resignation.

He said Gombe consequently challenged the process that produced a caretaker committee led by Senator David Mark, describing it as unconstitutional and unlawful.

Obono-Obla noted that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) was also joined in the suit because of its role in recognising and maintaining records of political party leadership.

He said Justice Lifu, after hearing the parties, found merit in Gombe’s arguments and declared the Mark-led caretaker committee illegal, while nullifying actions taken under it.

Explaining why the two judgments could not be regarded as conflicting, Obono-Obla said the legal principles governing res judicata and conflicting judgments required the parties, issues and reliefs involved in the cases to be substantially the same.

He argued that these requirements were absent in the ADC leadership cases because Abejide’s challenge was different from Gombe’s claim of a constitutional right to succeed the former party chairman.

He further maintained that the evidence and reliefs presented before the two judges were also different.

The former presidential aide also argued that judges of coordinate jurisdiction, such as two judges of the Federal High Court, were not bound by one another’s decisions in the same way that lower courts were bound by decisions of superior courts.

According to him, Justice Lifu was therefore not legally obligated to follow Justice Liman’s earlier decision, particularly as the two cases involved different facts and legal questions.

“To therefore claim that the judgment of 5th November 2026 conflicts with the judgment of 2nd July 2026 is to misunderstand the doctrine of precedent,” Obono-Obla stated.

He advised the ADC to pursue an appeal if it was dissatisfied with Justice Lifu’s decision, rather than relying on political statements questioning the circumstances surrounding the judgment.

Obono-Obla further cautioned against statements capable of creating the impression that the judiciary was being intimidated, insisting that the appropriate legal avenue for challenging a court decision was the appellate process.

He maintained that the Federal High Court had not contradicted itself, but had simply determined two different cases based on their peculiar facts and circumstances.

“The narrative of conflicting judgments should be discarded,” he added.

Obono-Obla, who writes from Abuja, is a legal practitioner and former Special Assistant to the President.