Political commentator, Femi Olarenwaju has argued that the lingering crisis within the African Democratic Congress (ADC) predates the entry of former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and his political associates into the party, insisting that attempts to blame President Bola Tinubu or the judiciary for the party’s current troubles disregard the legal history of the dispute.
Olarenwaju, in an article posted on his verified Facebook Page titled, “ADC: Before You Blame Tinubu or the Judiciary, Read the Facts,” maintained that the crisis originated from an internal leadership dispute in 2022, which was subsequently determined by the Federal High Court, Abuja, long before Atiku and his group joined the party in 2025.
He traced the controversy to September 2022, when 27 out of the 32 ADC state chairmen reportedly passed a vote of no confidence in the party’s then National Chairman, Ralph Nwosu, accusing him of remaining in office beyond his four-year tenure, which had expired on August 28, 2022.
According to Olarenwaju, the state chairmen rejected Nwosu’s decision to extend his tenure through an emergency National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting, dissolved his National Working Committee and constituted a caretaker committee to oversee the party’s affairs.
He recalled that the dispute eventually went before the Federal High Court in Abuja, where Justice Binta Nyako, on December 20, 2022, nullified Nwosu’s tenure extension and invalidated actions taken by his executive committee after August 2022.
The court, he added, also affirmed Senator Patricia Akwashiki, who was backed by the state chairmen as Chairman of the Board of Trustees, as the authentic leader mandated to steer the party towards a new national convention.
Olarenwaju argued that the 2022 judgement raises fundamental legal questions about the authority under which Nwosu purportedly transferred the party’s structure to Atiku’s group in 2025.
He questioned how a former national chairman whose tenure extension and subsequent executive actions had been nullified by a court could legally transfer control of the party to another group.
Emphasising the legal principle that nobody can give what he does not possess, Olarenwaju said the controversy surrounding the ADC leadership was fundamentally a question of legal authority rather than political interference.
He further drew attention to the ADC constitution, arguing that only a properly convened National Convention has the authority to elect national executives and confer legitimacy on the party’s leadership.
He maintained that the emergence of a new National Working Committee through announcements and political arrangements, without adherence to the party’s constitutional provisions, could not substitute for a legitimate national convention.
According to him, recognising such arrangements would create a dangerous precedent in which wealthy political interests could take over registered political parties without the consent of their existing members.
The commentator also faulted Atiku’s political choices in finding an alternative platform ahead of the 2027 general elections, claiming that other options, including the Social Democratic Party (SDP) and the recommendation to establish a new political party, had been available but were not pursued.
He argued that the decision to embrace the ADC despite its unresolved leadership dispute exposed the Atiku’s group to the legal complications now confronting them.
On the judicial process, Olarenwaju explained that the Supreme Court’s April decision returning the matter to the High Court for trial should not have been interpreted as a final victory by either side.
He described the decision as procedural, intended to ensure that the substantive facts of the dispute were properly examined and determined by the trial court.
He therefore urged political actors and supporters to respect judicial decisions, stressing that the judiciary should not be celebrated when its pronouncements favour one side and condemned when the outcome goes against that side.
Rejecting allegations of political conspiracy against the ADC faction associated with Atiku, Olarenwaju insisted that President Tinubu neither created the party’s 2022 leadership crisis nor authored its constitution or the judgement that determined the original dispute.
He said the present controversy was a consequence of attempts to build a political arrangement on a leadership foundation already challenged and determined in court before the arrival of the new political entrants.
Olarenwaju consequently called for adherence to the rule of law and the ADC constitution, urging the contending interests to pursue a properly conducted national convention through which party members could freely determine their leadership.
He maintained that the future of political parties and democratic development in Nigeria depended on respect for internal democracy, constitutional procedures and judicial authority, rather than financial influence, political alliances or media-driven claims to legitimacy.
He finally said that the ADC crisis should be examined against its documented legal history, insisting that the events of 2022 remain central to understanding the party’s present leadership controversy and the challenges facing those seeking to use the platform for the 2027 general elections.
