The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has filed an appeal against the Federal High Court judgment that sacked its Senator David Mark-led National Executive Committee and invalidated the nomination of former Vice President Atiku Abubakar as its presidential candidate for the 2027 general elections.
The opposition party has also filed an application for a stay of execution pending the hearing and determination of the appeal, while formally notifying the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) of the legal proceedings.
In a statement issued on Friday by the Director of Strategic Communication of the ADC Presidential Campaign Council, Phrank Shaibu, the party urged INEC to refrain from taking consequential steps based on the judgment while the appeal and stay application remained pending.
The development follows Thursday’s ruling by Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja, which declared the Mark-led ADC caretaker committee illegal and nullified actions taken under its leadership, including the presidential primary that produced Atiku as the party’s flag bearer.
The judgment arose from a suit filed by the party’s former National Deputy Chairman (North-East), Nafiu Bala Gombe, who challenged the process through which the Mark-led committee assumed control of the ADC.
Gombe had argued that following the resignation of the party’s former National Chairman, Ralph Nwosu, he was entitled to assume the party’s leadership.
However, the ADC has now challenged the lower court’s decision, seeking appellate intervention and a suspension of its enforcement pending the determination of the case.
According to the party, the application for a stay of execution has yet to be determined, making it necessary for INEC to exercise caution in responding to the judgment.
“The application for a stay has not yet been determined. INEC must therefore exercise restraint. It must not act as though the appeal and stay application do not exist, or take any step that could pre-empt the Court of Appeal and undermine the proper resolution of this matter,” the statement read.
“The Commission must respect the judicial process and allow the appellate court to hear the case.”
The ADC maintained that it was exercising its constitutional and legal right to challenge the judgment, insisting that the dispute should be allowed to proceed through the appellate process.
“The ADC is exercising its lawful right to appeal. The judgment is now under challenge before a higher court, and the legal process must be allowed to run its course,” Shaibu stated.
