Nafiu Bala’s purported resignation letter submitted by ADC was fabricated, court rules

A federal high court in Abuja has declared fictitious a resignation letter allegedly signed by Nafiu Bala, 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 judgment delivered on November 5, 2026, Peter Lifu, presiding judge, 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.

BACKGROUND

Bala 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. 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 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 names of the convention or meeting committee members. He 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 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.

WHAT THE DEFENDANTS SAID

The ADC and the other defendants opposed the suit, arguing that Bala 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 the dispute concerned the internal affairs of a political party and was therefore not justiciable.

They challenged Bala’s locus standi, saying he had voluntarily resigned and failed to exhaust the party’s internal dispute-resolution mechanisms.

The third defendant, Aregbesola, additionally challenged Bala’s proof of membership, alleging that he had failed to renew his membership for over six months. He filed a counter-claim seeking declaratory reliefs and N850 million in costs.

WHAT THE JUDGE DECIDED

In resolving the dispute, Lifu held that the fact that the letter was certified did not, by itself, establish that Bala actually signed it.

Lifu held that the signature on the disputed letter was “materially different” from Bala’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.”

On the emergence of the new leadership, the judge held that the defendants failed to establish that the process complied with the mandatory requirement for democratic elections under section 82(3) of the Electoral Act 2022.

He said there was no satisfactory evidence that members or duly elected delegates were given the opportunity to participate in an election and vote for candidates of their choice.

The judge stressed that INEC’s receipt of notice and monitoring of the meeting could not substitute for proof of a democratic election.

“The fact that INEC received notice of the meeting and monitored its proceedings does not fill this evidential gap. Notice to the Commission and democratic election are separate requirements, and proof of the former is not proof of the latter,” he said.

Lifu further held that the NEC’s general powers under the ADC constitution could not override the constitutional and statutory requirements for electing members of a political party’s executive or governing body.

He said the emergence of Mark and Aregbesola as national officers at the July 29, 2025 meeting had not been shown to satisfy the requirements of the law.

The court consequently granted the plaintiff’s substantive reliefs, declared the relevant actions and decisions arising from the meeting null and void, and restrained INEC from recognising or dealing with Mark, Aregbesola and the members of the NWC they represented as officers of the party.