ADC leadership: Why 3 rival blocs are locked in do-or-die battle

By Clifford Ndujihe, Luminous Jannamike & Olayinka Ajayi

LAGOS — The leadership crisis rocking the African Democratic Congress, ADC, has snowballed into a full-blown political war, with three rival camps laying claim to the soul of the party in what insiders describe as a fierce “winner-takes-all” struggle ahead of the 2027 general elections.

At the heart of the conflict are factions loyal to David Mark, Nafiu Gombe, and former presidential candidate, Dumebi Kachikwu, alongside his ally, Kingsley Temitope Ogga, each accusing the other of illegality, impunity and hijack of party structures.

Leaders of the Senator Mark-led leadership have pointed accusing fingers at the presidency and the All Progressives Congress, APC, over the stance of the Nafiu Gombe and Kachikwu camps, which they alleged was to pave way for President Bola Tinubu’s re-election.

“How can somebody who took part in all the process that led to the emergence of Senator Mark as national chairman suddenly wake up to disown the process, claiming he didn’t resign and accusing our leaders of hijacking ADC? Nafiu Gombe attended all the meetings. It is obvious some of them are working for the APC.”

Countering this position, Gombe insisted he didn’t resign as deputy national chairman and now remained acting chairman after the resignation of Chief Ralph Okey Nwosu.

The APC and the presidency also lashed the Mark-led team for not putting their house in order and should not blame the government and APC.

“After selling the ADC, the sellers failed to carry all top stakeholders along. Now they are blaming the presidency,” a presidency source told Vanguard weekend.

Old allies’ fight hard

The crisis, which has pitched old allies against one another, escalated following a court order barring congresses and conventions — an order one of the factions is accused of violating.

Court order ignites fresh storm

On April 14, 2026, a Federal High Court in Abuja directed all parties in the dispute to maintain the status quo, halting any congresses or conventions pending the determination of suits bordering on the party’s leadership.

The order came the same day the Mark-led camp was holding a National Convention, a move that has further fractured the party and triggered a volley of accusations.

Kachikwu, who leads one of the contending blocs, described the exercise as “a show of political gangsterism” allegedly aimed at provoking chaos.

“They have one agenda, if we can’t have it, no one else can,” he said, warning that such actions could destabilise not just the party but the polity.

He accused further members of the rival bloc of “playing politics with the blood of innocent Nigerians,” insisting that Nigeria “can no longer afford institutional sabotage by old political class.”

Mark camp: We followed due process

However, the Mark-led leadership has dismissed the criticisms, insisting that its emergence and actions were firmly rooted in the party’s constitution.

The camp maintained that the July 29, 2025, formation of its Caretaker/Interim National Working Committee, NWC, followed due process and was duly ratified by the National Executive Committee, NEC, in line with the party’s governing provisions.

According to the faction, NEC possesses the constitutional authority to administer the party, implement convention decisions and establish interim structures where necessary.

It further argued that any eligibility requirements, including the controversial two-year membership rule for national offices, were lawfully waived through NEC resolutions earlier in 2025 to accommodate coalition arrangements.

On the contentious convention, the Mark group insists it acted within its rights, stressing that dissenting members violated party discipline by heading to court without exhausting internal dispute mechanisms — an offence it says warranted their expulsion.

The camp also points to what it described as earlier recognition by the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, as well as successful grassroots congresses as validation of its legitimacy.

Process flawed, leadership illegal — Gombe camp

In sharp contrast, the Gombe-led faction has rejected the entire process, describing it as unconstitutional and void.

The group insists that neither Mark nor his allies met the basic eligibility requirements for national office, particularly the mandatory two-year membership rule and ward-level registration.

It further accused former National Chairman, Ralph Nwosu, of lacking the powers to unilaterally hand over party leadership, a move it said violated clear constitutional provisions on succession and vacancy filling.

According to the camp, no valid amendment or waiver of the party’s constitution took place.

It argued further that such changes could only be effected at a properly convened National Convention with due notice and requisite majority.

Gombe’s loyalists maintain that, as Deputy National Chairman, he automatically assumed leadership, following the vacuum, insisting that all actions taken by the Mark faction remained null and void.

They are relying on ongoing litigation, including a suit before the Federal High Court and a Court of Appeal order directing parties to maintain the status quo ante bellum, to assert their claim.

Kachikwu/Temitope bloc: Both sides are illegitimate

Complicating matters further is the third camp led by Kachikwu and backed by a coalition of state chairmen, which has rejected both the Mark and Gombe factions.

The group argues that neither camp emerged through a constitutionally recognised process, accusing both of violating key provisions relating to membership eligibility and party administration.

According to the bloc, the alleged caretaker arrangements and congresses were never ratified by a properly constituted NEC, which, by the party’s rules, must include all state chairmen.

It also faulted what it described as an attempted “transfer” of party structures without due authorisation, insisting that only a valid NEC or Convention could take such decisions.

Positioning itself as a “rescue mission,” the faction says it is working to restore internal democracy, uphold the rule of law and prepare the party for credible participation in the 2027 elections.

The group has thrown its weight behind INEC’s de-recognition of disputed structures and court rulings restraining further actions.

3 ADCs, one constitution

With each camp brandishing different interpretations of the same constitution, the ADC now effectively operates as three parallel parties, each with its own leadership, structures and narrative of legitimacy.

Political observers say the crisis reflects deeper fault lines over control, ideology and the party’s role in emerging opposition coalitions.

For Kachikwu, the stakes go beyond internal supremacy.

“Men with abysmal records in public service now claim to be on a rescue mission.  But it is a mission to rescue their personal economies,” he said.

Uncertain road to 2027

As the legal tussle drags on and internal reconciliation efforts falter, concerns are mounting over the party’s viability as a credible opposition platform, ahead of the next general polls.

With court orders hanging, expulsions flying and conventions disputed, the ADC’s battle appears far from over — a high-stakes contest where, as one insider puts it, “everyone wants the party, but no one wants to lose.”

That is the main reason all eyes are on the Supreme Court, which will look at the leadership tussle on Wednesday.

The post ADC leadership: Why 3 rival blocs are locked in do-or-die battle appeared first on Vanguard News.