ADC ACCUSES TINUBU APC OF OBSTRUCTING ATIKU CAMPAIGN AFTER KADUNA VENUE IS SEALED

The African Democratic Congress has accused President Bola Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress of using public authority to frustrate opposition political activities after a venue proposed for presidential candidate Atiku Abubakar’s consultation with Northern stakeholders in Kaduna was reportedly sealed ahead of the meeting. The party says the development forms part of what it describes as a growing pattern of obstruction against its 2027 campaign and has linked the controversy to a separate legal battle over a Federal High Court judgment that invalidated the David Mark led leadership of the ADC and placed the process that produced Atiku as presidential candidate under serious legal pressure. The APC and relevant authorities had not provided a detailed public response to all of the ADC’s allegations at the time of the latest reporting, making the party’s accusations claims that still require official answers rather than established findings of government interference.

In a statement issued by Phrank Shaibu, Director of Strategic Communication of the ADC Presidential Campaign Council, the party said Atiku’s campaign had proposed Arewa House in Kaduna as the venue for a Thursday meeting with Northern stakeholders. According to the ADC, the facility was sealed shortly before the consultation was scheduled to take place, preventing the campaign from using it as planned. Atiku said his team had selected the venue in advance and claimed that the decision to close it came only after authorities became aware of his planned engagement.

The ADC described Arewa House as part of Northern Nigeria’s shared political, historical and cultural heritage and argued that denying access to it for a political consultation amounted to an attempt to restrict legitimate democratic activity. The party said its concern was not simply about losing a venue but about what it sees as an emerging pattern in which opposition gatherings are placed under pressure during an increasingly tense presidential campaign. It cited an earlier campaign event in Sokoto, where the party says officials also attempted to frustrate its activities before supporters eventually gathered in large numbers.

Atiku used the Kaduna development to accuse the ruling party of intolerance and said an incumbent administration should allow opposition candidates to consult freely with citizens and political stakeholders. His campaign argued that access to venues, freedom of assembly and the ability to organize political meetings are basic components of a competitive election. The ADC said it would continue its consultations despite what it described as attempts to obstruct them and thanked supporters for remaining engaged with the campaign.

The party directly held Tinubu and the APC politically responsible for the alleged pattern, saying public institutions should not be used to weaken political competitors. That accusation is serious because it suggests not merely partisan disagreement but the misuse of government authority for electoral advantage. However, the ADC has not publicly produced evidence showing that Tinubu personally ordered the sealing of the Kaduna venue, and no independently verified documentation establishing such a directive had emerged at the time of publication.

The absence of a detailed official explanation has added to the political controversy. Reports differ in their description of the exact facility involved, with some referring to Arewa House and others describing the location as the Arewa Consultative Forum secretariat. The ADC’s own statements identify the proposed venue as Arewa House and say it had been selected for Atiku’s consultation with Northern stakeholders. Until the authorities responsible for the building explain the closure, questions will remain over who ordered it, why it was sealed and whether the timing was connected to Atiku’s planned visit.

The dispute comes at an especially sensitive moment for the ADC because the party is simultaneously fighting to preserve the legal validity of the leadership structure that organized its presidential primary. On November 5, Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja ruled against the Senator David Mark led ADC leadership following a suit brought by former National Deputy Chairman for the North East, Nafiu Bala Gombe. The court found merit in Gombe’s challenge to the process through which Mark and other members of the party’s caretaker structure assumed control of the organization.

The ruling invalidated the disputed leadership and actions taken under it, creating immediate uncertainty around decisions made by the Mark led executives. Among the most politically important of those decisions was the process through which Atiku emerged as the ADC presidential candidate for the January 16, 2027 election. Atiku had already been listed by the Independent National Electoral Commission as a presidential candidate and had selected former Rivers State governor Rotimi Amaechi as his running mate when the judgment threw the party into another legal crisis.

The precise wording of the judgment has now become central to the dispute. Former senator Dino Melaye, an Atiku ally, said after the certified true copy was finally obtained that Atiku’s name and the names of other candidates do not appear anywhere in the judgment. His argument is that public claims that the judge directly nullified Atiku’s candidacy overstate what the court actually wrote. Nevertheless, because the judgment invalidated the leadership responsible for the primary and other party decisions, its practical effect on Atiku’s nomination remains a major legal question that may ultimately be determined on appeal.

That distinction matters because political headlines have often described the decision simply as a judgment that removed Atiku as candidate. The written ruling appears more complicated. The court focused primarily on the legality of the ADC leadership arrangement and the authority of the David Mark led structure to act for the party. If that leadership lacked lawful authority, decisions made under it may also be vulnerable, but whether Atiku’s candidacy can be preserved through other provisions of electoral law is now part of the legal argument the ADC intends to take to the Court of Appeal.

The party has strongly criticized the time it took to obtain the certified true copy. Shaibu said the authenticated judgment was released on Wednesday, the seventh and final day of the period referred to in Section 294 of the Constitution for providing parties with authenticated copies of court decisions. The ADC said that although the court remained within the outer constitutional window, releasing the document only at the end of that period left its lawyers with extremely limited time to study a judgment with potentially enormous consequences for a presidential election that is only weeks away.

Section 294 of the 1999 Constitution provides that courts should furnish parties with authenticated copies of decisions within seven days of delivery. The ADC does not dispute that the copy ultimately arrived within that period. Its criticism is about the practical effect of waiting until the last permissible day in a fast moving election dispute, where appeal deadlines and campaign preparations create pressure that would not exist in ordinary litigation.

Before the document was released, party officials and Atiku supporters had become increasingly frustrated. Demonstrators gathered outside the Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday demanding access to the judgment, arguing that delay was interfering with Atiku’s ability to pursue an appeal. Some protesters said they planned to take petitions to international institutions, including the United States Embassy and the United Nations, as part of an effort to draw attention to what they regarded as an attack on political competition.

The ADC had also publicly complained on November 9 that it had applied for the certified copy and paid the necessary fees but had still not received the judgment. Party officials said every additional day without the document reduced the time available to prepare their appellate case and damaged confidence in the judicial process. The eventual release of the copy has removed that immediate procedural complaint but has not ended the party’s criticism of the timing.

The legal challenge itself originated inside the ADC rather than from the APC or the federal government. Nafiu Bala Gombe argued that the transfer of party leadership to the Mark led group violated the ADC constitution and the Electoral Act. He maintained that following the resignation of former national chairman Ralph Nwosu, he had a stronger claim to assume leadership and asked the court to invalidate subsequent actions taken by the disputed executives. Justice Lifu agreed with central parts of his argument and granted reliefs that disrupted the leadership structure that had overseen the party’s transformation into a major opposition platform.

That background complicates the ADC’s political accusation that the ruling represents an APC attempt to destroy the opposition. The lawsuit was brought by a party figure asserting rights within the ADC, and the court ruling arose from that internal dispute. The ADC believes the judgment is legally wrong and politically damaging, but publicly available evidence does not establish that the APC initiated the case or directed the judge’s decision.

The party nevertheless argues that the judgment must be understood within a broader political environment in which Atiku’s campaign has faced repeated obstacles. For the ADC, the sealing of the Kaduna venue only days after the Federal High Court decision reinforces its suspicion that different institutions are being used in ways that collectively disadvantage the opposition. That is the political case Shaibu is making even though the individual events have separate legal and administrative origins.

The ruling party may argue that the ADC is attempting to turn legal and administrative disputes into evidence of political persecution. That counterargument is likely to become increasingly prominent as the 2027 campaign intensifies because opposition parties routinely accuse governments of abusing incumbency while governing parties often respond that lawful actions are being misrepresented for campaign advantage. Determining which interpretation is more accurate requires looking at the evidence behind each specific incident rather than assuming that every dispute has the same cause.

The Arewa House controversy will therefore depend heavily on what Kaduna authorities say next. If officials demonstrate that the building was closed for a reason unrelated to Atiku’s consultation, such as maintenance, security or another previously scheduled activity, that would weaken the ADC’s allegation of deliberate obstruction. If no credible explanation emerges or evidence shows the closure was specifically ordered because of Atiku’s visit, the party’s claims would carry greater weight.

Arewa House itself holds symbolic importance in Northern Nigerian political life. Located in Kaduna and associated with the legacy and historical documentation of Northern Nigeria, it has long been used for lectures, consultations and public discussions involving political leaders, academics and civil society figures. That history is why the ADC has framed the closure not simply as the loss of a rented hall but as an attempt to deny Atiku access to a venue with deep regional significance.

Atiku’s planned meeting was meant to bring him together with Northern stakeholders as his campaign attempts to consolidate support ahead of the January presidential election. The former vice president has a long political history in Northern Nigeria and is seeking to build a coalition capable of challenging Tinubu’s reelection bid. Consultations with elders, political figures and community leaders therefore form an important part of his strategy.

The ADC has rapidly become a major part of the opposition landscape after attracting politicians from several existing parties and political blocs. The party’s leadership under David Mark was central to that expansion, which is why the Federal High Court ruling has consequences far beyond an internal leadership disagreement. If the appellate courts ultimately uphold the judgment and invalidate decisions made by the disputed leadership, the party could face serious questions about candidate nominations, campaign structures and legal representation.

The ADC insists that Atiku remains its candidate and says its lawyers believe there are strong grounds for appeal. Party officials argue that election law and the specific wording of the judgment will allow them to defend the nomination even while challenging the decision on the leadership dispute. That legal strategy will become clearer after lawyers complete their review of the certified judgment.

For INEC, the case creates another difficult question. The electoral commission had already recognized Atiku as the ADC presidential candidate before the Federal High Court ruling. Whether INEC must alter that position will depend on the final legal effect of the judgment, any appeal filed by the ADC and possible orders from higher courts. In fast moving election litigation, a judgment at one level may not immediately produce the final electoral consequence if appellate proceedings remain active.

The timing is particularly important because Nigeria’s presidential election is scheduled for January 16, 2027. Political parties have limited time to campaign, prepare agents, mobilize supporters and resolve disputes over candidates. A prolonged legal battle lasting deep into the campaign could create uncertainty for the ADC and make it harder for the party to focus exclusively on its political message.

Atiku’s camp is therefore trying to pursue two tracks at once. Legally, it is preparing to challenge Justice Lifu’s ruling and defend the validity of its presidential ticket. Politically, it is continuing consultations and rallies while portraying obstacles such as the Kaduna venue dispute as evidence that the ruling party is worried about opposition momentum.

The APC is likely to reject that interpretation and insist that the opposition should resolve its internal legal problems rather than blame the government. The strength of either position will depend on facts that are still emerging, particularly the reason Arewa House was sealed and the outcome of the ADC’s appeal.

The political temperature surrounding the case is already high. Shaibu’s statement describes Tinubu as an outgoing president and accuses the government of trying to weaken Nigerians’ right to choose. Such language shows that the ADC is not treating the controversy as a narrow procedural matter but as part of a broader campaign argument about democracy, incumbency and political freedom.

That rhetoric also places additional responsibility on all sides to distinguish verifiable facts from political claims. It is established that Justice Lifu ruled against the Mark led ADC leadership, that the certified copy was received on the seventh day after judgment, that the party plans to appeal and that a venue proposed for Atiku’s Kaduna consultation was reportedly sealed. It is not yet established that Tinubu personally directed the venue closure or that the court ruling was orchestrated by the APC.

The difference is essential in an election period because accusations involving misuse of state power can have major political consequences. Opposition parties have every right to challenge government actions they believe are unfair, while public institutions have an obligation to explain decisions that affect political activity. At the same time, evidence is necessary before responsibility for an individual administrative decision can be attributed directly to the presidency.

The dispute is unlikely to end with Wednesday’s statements. The ADC is expected to continue its Northern consultations, pursue its appeal and intensify its public criticism of the ruling party. Kaduna authorities may also face pressure to explain the circumstances surrounding the closure and whether the facility will become available again.

The Court of Appeal will eventually have to address the legal questions arising from Justice Lifu’s judgment if the ADC proceeds as promised. That process could determine whether the David Mark leadership survives, whether its decisions remain valid and what ultimately happens to Atiku’s presidential nomination.

For now, Atiku remains at the center of two simultaneous battles. One is in the courts over the legal foundation of the party structure that produced his candidacy. The other is on the campaign trail, where his team says it is facing attempts to limit political consultations and restrict access to venues.

The ADC has chosen to connect those battles and present them as evidence of a wider struggle over democratic competition ahead of the 2027 election. The government and APC will face pressure to answer those accusations directly, while the courts will determine the separate legal dispute over the party’s leadership.

Until those processes are completed, the most accurate description is that Atiku’s candidacy faces serious legal uncertainty but has not disappeared from the political contest without further challenge. The ADC has received the judgment, says it will appeal and insists its campaign will continue. The controversy over the sealed Kaduna venue now ensures that the legal battle will unfold alongside an equally intense political argument over whether Nigeria’s opposition is being allowed to campaign on a fair and open field.