A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has declared fictitious a resignation letter allegedly signed by Nafiu Bala Gombe, a former deputy national chairman of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), which the party relied on to argue that he voluntarily relinquished his position.
In a Certified True Copy (CTC) of a 68-page judgment delivered on November 5, 2026, and made available to newsmen in Abuja, Justice Peter Lifu declared the Mark-led caretaker committee illegal and invalidated all decisions taken by the party’s caretaker committee, including the nomination of Atiku Abubakar as the ADC presidential candidate for the 2027 election.
Gombe had approached the court to challenge the emergence of David Mark, former Senate President, and Rauf Aregbesola, former Osun State governor, 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 Ralph Nwosu, the former national chairman, resigned.
He 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, arguing 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.
Gombe contended that the vacancies created by the resignations could only be filled through a democratic election 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 argued that the notice convening the meeting was defective because it did not include the required agenda and the names of the convention or meeting committee members.
He accused the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the fourth defendant in his suit, of failing in its statutory responsibilities by attending the meeting, issuing a report and subsequently recognising the new leadership.
Gombe further disputed the authenticity of a resignation letter dated May 17, 2025, tendered by the ADC as Exhibit ADC 1, as well as a forwarding letter, Exhibit ADC 2.
He told the court that the signatures on both documents were not his, describing the disputed signature as a “forged and poor imitation” of his authentic signature.
He argued that the documents could not be relied upon to establish his resignation and that the conflict required oral evidence under the Evidence Act.
The ADC and the other defendants opposed the suit, arguing that Bala had voluntarily resigned as deputy national chairman in a letter dated May 17, 2025, and consequently lost the standing to challenge subsequent decisions of the party.
They argued 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 the NEC resolutions of March 27 and May 15, 2025, alongside notices issued to INEC ahead of the July 29 meeting, provided the basis for the dissolution of the existing NWC and the constitution of a new leadership.
They maintained that the 99th NEC meeting was validly convened, that INEC monitored the proceedings and that the commission subsequently recognised the new officers.
The defendants also argued that Gombe’s suit centred on the internal leadership structure and governance of the ADC, which they said constituted the exclusive domestic affairs of a voluntary association and was entirely non-justiciable.
They challenged Gombe’s locus standi, saying he had voluntarily resigned and failed to exhaust the party’s internal dispute-resolution mechanisms.
In resolving the dispute, Lifu held that the fact that the letter was certified did not, by itself, establish that Gombe had actually signed it. He also held that the signature on the disputed letter was “materially different” from Gombe’s signatures on other documents before the court.
“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 held.
“I have carefully compared the signature appearing on Exhibit ADC 1, purportedly the Plaintiff’s resignation letter, with the signatures appearing on the various witness statements on oath deposed to by the Plaintiff in this suit.
“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.
“In the circumstances, and having considered the disputed document alongside the signatures on the Plaintiff’s witness statements on oath, I am not satisfied that Exhibit ADC 1 represents the genuine act of the Plaintiff.
“I therefore reject it as reliable proof that the Plaintiff voluntarily resigned from his position as Deputy National Chairman of the 1st Defendant.
“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 to establish that he relinquished his office before the events giving rise to this suit. I so hold.”
WATCH TOP VIDEOS FROM NIGERIAN TRIBUNE TV