The Taminu Turaki-led faction of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, has hinted at the real reason behind court ruling in favour of the FCT Minister, Nyesom Wike’s camp.

It claimed that ‘politics of power, money and greed’ may have influenced the decision of the Federal High Court to strike out its suit seeking the recognition of its leadership.

This is contained in a statement by the faction’s National Publicity Secretary, Ini Ememobong, on Friday.

According to the spokesperson, the ruling was disappointing, stating that political interests may have influenced the the verdict of the court.

While saying they they respected the court, Ememobong said the did not agree with its ruling, stressing that the court’s decision was not in accordance with previous judgments of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

“While we respect the judgment of the trial court, we respectfully consider that it is against the extant judgments of the Appeal and apex courts, leaving the plaintiffs with no option but to appeal the judgment and the rulings therein,” the party said.

The PDP faction further revealed that they had already instructed their lawyers to challenge the ruling at the Court of Appeal.

It expressed the optimism that as they take the case to the Appeal Court, the survival of true opposition and multi-party democracy will be assured and they will get their victory.

According to the party, the politics of power, money and greed may last for a while, expressing the certainty of victory regardless of the judgment by the Federal High Court.

Nigerian businessman, Isaac Fayose, says he had a telephone conversation with the presidential candidate of the Nigeria Democratic Congress, NDC, Peter Obi shortly after his recent threat to dump the Obidient Movement.

DAILY POST recalls that Fayose had while reacting to the backlash that followed a viral video showing him praying with President Bola Tinubu’s son, Seyi Tinubu, said Obi never appreciated his efforts.

The public affairs commentator in a video clip that was widely circulated on Friday, threatened that he could withdraw his support for Peter Obi, if he chooses.

However, in a video posted on his Facebook fan page on Friday night, Fayose confirmed that he had a telephone conversation with the NDC candidate, stating that he is “one million percent Obidient”.

He said, “Four hours ago, my leader, Peter Obi called me. His Excellency said “sorry about your wife. I’m in Lagos tonight or tomorrow morning, I will be in your house”.

“I love Tinubu’s family but Nigeria belongs to Nigerians and they are saying enough is enough. It’s time for change”.

Watch video:

By Luminous Jannamike

The ADC’s leadership crisis is heading to the Supreme Court, but the bigger battle may not be legal. As the opposition coalition fights over control of its structures, time is running out to convince Nigerians it is ready for the 2027 elections.

Read Also: From lender to borrower: Arise TV’s Rufai Oseni weeps over Nigeria

By the time the Supreme Court finally settles the battle over the African Democratic Congress (ADC), the legal questions may have been answered. The political damage, however, may already have been done.

That is the irony confronting Nigeria’s most prominent opposition coalition.

For months, the conversation around the ADC has revolved around court orders, rival factions, congresses and constitutions; not policies, campaigns or governance. Every judgment has produced another appeal. Every appeal has prolonged uncertainty. And in politics, uncertainty can be as damaging as defeat.

That is why last Monday’s Court of Appeal judgment is about much more than David Mark or Dumebi Kachikwu factions. It has become a test of whether an opposition coalition can remain electorally viable while fighting for control of itself. 

The Judgment that Changed the Conversation

In a split two-to-one decision, the Court of Appeal upheld an earlier Federal High Court judgment restraining the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising state congresses organised by committees appointed by the David Mark-led National Working Committee, NWC.

The appellate court agreed that under the ADC constitution, elected state executive committees, not a national working committee, possess the authority to conduct state congresses. It equally affirmed that the congresses and subsequent national convention organised by the David Mark leadership amounted to a nullity because they allegedly violated an earlier court order. 

The Mark camp has appealed to the Supreme Court, maintaining that the judgment neither removed its leadership nor invalidated candidates already uploaded to the INEC portal.

Legally, therefore, the dispute is far from over. Politically, it may just be beginning.

What the Supreme Court Will Really Decide

On Arise TV’s The Morning Show, constitutional lawyer Liborous Oshoma stripped away the politics and reduced the dispute to one decisive question.

“They must present the facts showing that the caretaker committee (appointed by Mark-led NWC) was subsequently suspended and did not conduct the congresses or primaries,” he stated. 

According to Oshoma, the burden now rests on the ADC to prove that the disputed congresses were conducted by lawful party structures rather than the caretaker committee.

If it cannot, he warned, the implications could extend beyond state executives.

“Yes, the presidential ticket is threatened by this court judgment… The truth will be laid bare, but time might not be on their side,” he cautioned. 

That final observation may be the most significant. Time, not merely law, has become the opposition’s greatest adversary.

Beyond the Courtroom

The legal arguments are relatively straightforward. The political consequences are not.

The David Mark NWC currently enjoys INEC recognition for candidates already uploaded onto the commission’s portal, including the Atiku Abubakar/Rotimi Amaechi presidential ticket and hundreds of legislative candidates. The Kachikwu faction, despite claiming legitimacy over party state structures, does not control those submissions. 

That creates a practical dilemma. Suppose the Supreme Court eventually upholds the Appeal Court judgment. The faction recognised as controlling the party structure may still confront the reality that another faction submitted candidates to INEC months earlier.

Conversely, should the apex court overturn the judgment, the Mark-led coalition may retain legal authority but still have to repair months of internal distrust and organisational paralysis. Either way, rebuilding confidence may prove harder than winning the case.

The Politics Nobody Wants to Discuss

Opposition politicians have repeatedly alleged that the ruling All Progressives Congress, APC, benefits from keeping rival parties trapped in endless litigation. Those allegations remain political claims; there is no verified evidence that the judiciary or INEC is acting at the direction of the government.

Yet one fact is difficult to ignore. Lengthy legal disputes consume energy, divide party elites, discourage donors and confuse supporters.

Whether caused by political strategy or self-inflicted organisational failures, the result can be remarkably similar: an opposition that spends more time in court than on the campaign trail.

Ironically, the courts may eventually clear every legal obstacle. But if public confidence has already eroded, legal victory may arrive too late to translate into electoral success.

Lessons from History

Nigerian politics offers enough precedents to make every political party wary of unresolved internal disputes.

The PDP’s prolonged Sheriff-Makarfi leadership crisis consumed valuable time before judicial certainty eventually emerged ahead of the 2019 presidential election. The APC’s failure to conduct valid primaries in Zamfara also cost it an election it had effectively won, after the Supreme Court nullified its victories in 2019.

The lesson is consistent. Political parties rarely lose only because opponents are stronger. Sometimes they lose because internal disputes become more important than the election itself. That is the danger staring the ADC in the face.

Three Possible Outcomes

The first scenario is that the Supreme Court affirms the Appeal Court. That could raise difficult questions about disputed congresses and trigger fresh political negotiations over party structures.

The second is that it overturns the judgment, restoring legal certainty to the Mark-led NWC and allowing the coalition to concentrate on campaigning.

The third, and perhaps most consequential, is delay. If the final judgment comes too close to critical electoral deadlines, whichever faction prevails may inherit a party that has lost precious time, momentum and public confidence.

For ordinary Nigerians, the issue extends beyond one opposition party. Democracy depends not only on competitive elections but also on credible political alternatives.

If opposition parties spend the months before an election litigating over who controls the party instead of persuading voters why they deserve power, the greatest casualty may not be the ADC. It may be the quality of electoral competition itself.

As the Supreme Court prepares to hear the case, the legal battle will continue. But the larger political question already hangs over Nigeria’s democracy: Can a party win its case in court after losing the confidence of the electorate?