The Federal High Court in Abuja has rejected a purported resignation letter allegedly written by former African Democratic Congress (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 by our correspondent on 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.
Bala had approached the court in September 2025, challenging the legitimacy of the leadership arrangement that produced Mark as national chairman and Rauf Aregbesola as national secretary.
The Mark-led faction had maintained that Bala resigned from his position on May 17, 2025, and that the resignation was subsequently communicated to the Independent National Electoral Commission.
However, Bala had repeatedly denied authoring the letter, describing it as forged.
In April 2026, he publicly disowned the document, insisting that neither the letter nor the signature on it emanated from him.
“I wish to state that this paper did not come from me, and that is not my signature on it. The signature you see there was forged,” he said.
The court’s rejection of the resignation letter weakened a central argument advanced by the Mark-led faction to establish that Bala had relinquished his position before the party’s leadership transition.
Justice Lifu also held that the emergence of Mark and Aregbesola at the party’s 99th National Executive Committee meeting on July 27, 2025, had not been shown to satisfy the mandatory requirement of democratic election under Section 82(3) of the Electoral Act 2022.
The judge said the party’s reliance on the powers of its National Executive Committee and INEC’s subsequent recognition of the leadership arrangement could not substitute for compliance with the statutory requirement.
The ruling has further complicated the ADC’s leadership crisis, with the Mark-led faction rejecting the judgment and indicating its intention to challenge it on appeal.
The decision also places the party’s 2027 electoral preparations under further legal uncertainty, particularly following the nullification of Atiku’s nomination.
