2027 elections: Atiku in more trouble as Court declares Nafiu Bala’s alleged resignation letter fake

The Independent National Electoral Commission has said that it will not take any action on the Federal High Court judgment nullifying the leadership of the African Democratic Congress until it obtains a certified true copy of the ruling.

Meanwhile, members of the ADC have staged a protest at the Federal High Court in Abuja, demanding the release of the Certified True Copy of the judgment nullifying the party’s National Working Committee led by former Senate President, David Mark.

The protesters, who called on the National Judicial Council to intervene, accused the trial judge, Justice Peter Lifu, of withholding the judgment delivered on November 5, thereby frustrating their efforts to challenge the decision at the Court of Appeal.

In the meantime, the Federal High Court in Abuja has rejected a purported resignation letter allegedly written by former ADC Deputy National Chairman, Nafiu Bala, ruling that the document was not genuine.

Justice Peter Lifu, in his judgment, delivered on Thursday November 5, held that the disputed letter, which the ADC faction led by former Senate President, David Mark, relied on to establish Bala’s resignation, was not authentic.

In a Certified True Copy of the judgment obtained Wednesday, the judge said his examination of the signature on the purported resignation letter alongside signatures on Bala’s witness statements on oath revealed material differences.

He consequently ruled that the document could not be relied upon as proof that Bala voluntarily relinquished his position in the party.

Justice Lifu held that the certification of a document did not automatically establish the authenticity of a disputed signature, noting that the court was required to examine the evidence before reaching a conclusion.

“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.

“Certification may establish the status of the copy as a true copy of the document in the custody of the certifying authority; it does not necessarily establish the authenticity of the disputed signature.

“The court must therefore consider the document alongside the other relevant evidence,” he held.

The judge further explained that a court could compare disputed signatures with admitted or otherwise established specimens without necessarily requiring expert evidence in every case.

He said he had carefully compared the signature on the document, tendered as Exhibit ADC-1, with those on Bala’s sworn statements and found that they were materially different.

Justice Lifu consequently rejected the document as reliable evidence of Bala’s resignation.

“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 (ADC),” the judge ruled.

The development formed part of the legal dispute over the leadership of the ADC, which culminated in the court’s judgment nullifying the emergence of the David Mark-led leadership, and the party’s nomination of former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar as its presidential candidate for the 2027 general election.

INEC National Commissioner and Charman of Information and Voter Education Committee, Mohammed Haruna, explained that the Commission needed to study the judgment and obtain legal advice before deciding its next move.

The judgment, delivered on November 5 by Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja, nullified the emergence of the Senator David Mark-led ADC leadership and invalidated decisions taken under it, including the process that produced former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar as the party’s presidential candidate for the 2027 election.

The ruling followed a suit filed by a former Deputy National Chairman of the party, Nafiu Bala Gombe, who challenged the emergence of the Mark-led leadership.

The ADC has rejected the judgment and appealed the decision. It also filed an application for a stay of execution and urged INEC not to take any consequential action while the appeal is pending.

Haruna said the Commission’s legal department would first examine the judgment and advise a committee chaired by a national commissioner, which would subsequently make recommendations to the Commission.

He explained that the Commission had already taken steps to obtain the document but could not compel the court to issue it immediately.

“We can’t rush the courts, but we do our own part. We have a whole legal department. As soon as judgments like this come, what they do, of course, is to go to the courts, to go to the court register, to see if they can obtain it. But they have their own processes,” he said.

According to him, it usually takes about a week to obtain a certified true copy of a judgment.

Haruna noted that the judgment was delivered towards the end of the previous week, adding that the Commission would begin its internal review once the document was received.

“So, as soon as we get it, we run a committee system. The department which is in charge of litigation will look into it, then they will advise. There is a committee which is chaired by a national commissioner. They, in turn, will advise the Commission itself, and then the Commission will take a decision on exactly what to do,” he said.

He added that the Commission could not take a decision on the matter until it received the certified true copy.

“So, for now, until we receive that certified true copy, there’s really nothing that we can do about it,” he said.

Speaking during the protest on Wednesday, a former Acting Chairman of the ADC in the Federal Capital Territory, Yusuf Shehu Tijani, described the judgment as a “sham” and urged the judge to release its certified copy.

“Our reason for coming here today is what Justice Lifu is doing. He is holding on to the sham judgment he said he passed. He should send the CTC, so that we can get it and appeal the judgment.

“Moreover, the Supreme Court already affirmed the leadership of Senator David Mark as the National Chairman of the African Democratic Congress. So why is the High Court going against that recognition saying he’s passing a judgment?

“Now the judgment you passed, give us the Certified True Copy so that we can appeal, he is refusing to do that. That is why we are here,” he said.

Tijani said the protest was intended to draw the attention of the NJC to the alleged delay, and compel the judge to release the document.

“So the protest is to call on the NJC to pressure this man, let him do what is right, because justice must prevail in Nigeria. This is not a jungle. This is a country that has laws, that has rules, and we have to follow the Constitution of the country.

“The stated law is that he should send the CTC so that we can appeal the judgment which is a sham judgment in the first place,” he added.

The protest followed a petition dated November 10, addressed to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho, by members of the ADC candidates’ forum, demanding the immediate release of the judgment.

In the petition signed by Audu Aliyu on behalf of the candidates, the group said its lawyers applied for the CTC immediately after Justice Lifu delivered the judgment on November 5, and paid the prescribed fees.

However, it alleged that five days after the judgment, the document had yet to be released despite repeated visits by its lawyers to the court’s registry.

The petition reads in part, “We disagree with the judgment. We have a constitutional right to appeal it. But we cannot appeal what we do not have.

“As at today, 10th November, 2026, five (5) days after judgment, the CTC has NOT been released to us. Our lawyers have visited the Registry daily to no avail without any lawful explanation.”

The candidates alleged that they had credible information that the ruling All Progressives Congress was pressuring the Independent National Electoral Commission to implement the judgment despite their inability to obtain its certified copy.

They argued that the alleged delay violated Section 294(1) of the 1999 Constitution, which provides for the delivery of written decisions by courts and the availability of copies to parties.

They also cited Sections 241 and 242 of the Constitution, which provide for appeals from decisions of the Federal High Court to the Court of Appeal.

The petitioners warned that withholding the judgment until the relevant election timetable expired could effectively deprive them of their constitutional right to appeal.

“If a party can obtain a judgment against the opposition on Thursday, and the CTC is withheld until the election timetable closes, then the right of appeal becomes a mere illusion. Democracy dies not by coup, but by Registry delay,” the petition stated.

The group urged the Chief Judge to direct the Registrar to release the CTC within 24 hours of receiving the petition, specifically on or before Wednesday, November 11.

It also notified the Chief Judge that its support groups, comprising ADC members, candidates and other concerned Nigerians, would converge on the Federal High Court premises in Abuja by 10am on Wednesday to receive the document.

The petitioners, however, insisted that the gathering was not intended as a protest against the judiciary, but a demand for access to the judgment to enable them to pursue their appeal.