ADC: Court declares Bala’s resignation letter invalid

A Federal High Court in Abuja has rejected a resignation letter allegedly signed by Nafiu Bala, former Deputy National Chairman of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), ruling that it was not genuine evidence that he voluntarily relinquished his position. In a judgment delivered on November 5, 2026, Justice Peter Lifu held that the signature on the disputed letter was materially different from Bala’s signatures on other documents submitted before the court.

According to TheCable, the judgment declared the David Mark-led caretaker committee of the ADC illegal and invalidated decisions taken by the committee, including the nomination of former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar as the party’s presidential candidate for the 2027 general election. Bala had approached the court to challenge the emergence of former Senate President David Mark and former Osun State Governor Rauf Aregbesola as national chairman and national secretary of the ADC, respectively, following the party’s 99th National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting held on July 29, 2025, after the resignation of former national chairman, Ralph Nwosu.

The plaintiff told the court that he was elected Deputy National Chairman on October 12, 2022, for a four-year tenure expected to expire on October 11, 2026. He argued that he remained the only elected member of the party’s National Working Committee (NWC) who had not resigned following the departure of other members. Bala contended that vacancies created by the resignations could only be filled through democratic elections by delegates, as required by the party’s constitution, the 1999 Constitution and the Electoral Act 2022.

He alleged that Mark, Aregbesola and 49 other individuals were arbitrarily appointed and ratified as members of the NWC at the July 29 meeting without an election. The plaintiff also challenged the validity of the notice convening the meeting, arguing that it failed to include the required agenda and names of members of the convention or meeting committee.

He further accused the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) of failing in its statutory responsibilities by attending the meeting, issuing a report and subsequently recognising the new leadership. Bala specifically disputed the authenticity of a resignation letter dated May 17, 2025, tendered by the ADC as Exhibit ADC 1, alongside a forwarding letter identified as Exhibit ADC 2.

He maintained that the signatures on both documents were not his, describing the disputed signature as a forged and poor imitation of his authentic signature. Defendants’ position The ADC and other defendants opposed the suit, arguing that Bala voluntarily resigned as deputy national chairman in a letter dated May 17, 2025, and consequently lacked the legal standing to challenge subsequent decisions of the party.

They maintained that the party’s constitution vested the NEC with delegated powers to dissolve the NWC, waive certain membership requirements and appoint or elect national officers between national conventions. The defendants said NEC resolutions of March 27 and May 15, 2025, alongside notices issued to INEC ahead of the July 29 meeting, provided the basis for dissolving the existing NWC and constituting a new leadership.

They insisted that the 99th NEC meeting was validly convened, monitored by INEC and subsequently recognised by the commission. The defendants also argued that the dispute concerned the internal affairs of a political party and was therefore not justiciable. They challenged Bala’s locus standi, contending that he had voluntarily resigned and failed to exhaust the party’s internal dispute-resolution mechanisms.

Aregbesola, the third defendant, additionally challenged Bala’s proof of membership, alleging that he had failed to renew his membership for more than six months. He also filed a counter-claim seeking declaratory reliefs and N850 million in costs. What the judge said In resolving the dispute over the resignation letter, Justice Lifu held that the certification of a document did not, by itself, establish that the person named in it actually signed it.

The judge said he compared the signature on the disputed resignation letter with those appearing on Bala’s witness statements on oath and found material differences. He held: “The fact that a document is certified, however, does not, by that fact alone, settle a genuine dispute as to whether the person named in it actually signed it.” The judge further stated: “Upon a close examination and comparison of these signatures in line with the decisions of the courts earlier provided, I find that they are materially different and cannot reasonably be regarded as one and the same signature.” He consequently rejected Exhibit ADC 1 as reliable proof that Bala voluntarily resigned from his position as deputy national chairman.

“Accordingly, Exhibit ADC 1 is hereby held not to constitute a valid or established resignation letter of the Plaintiff, and the Defendants cannot rely on it