By Okoi Obono-Obla
There is a time to fight, and there is a time to be wise. The African Democratic Congress (ADC), in its reaction to the judgment of the Federal High Court, Abuja, in Nafiu Bala Gombe v. ADC & Ors, chose to fight in the worst possible way — with emotion, not law.
I refer to the press statement issued on 5 November 2026 by the National Publicity Secretary of the ADC, Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi, titled, “Lifu Judgment: APC Wants To Set Nigeria On Fire.”
In that statement, the party did not merely disagree with Justice Peter Lifu. It accused him, in effect, of delivering a pre-written judgment. It said: “We have reasons to believe that the judgment had long been written on this case. The Sokoto rally was simply a trigger that stampeded its delivery.”
It went further, to allege that the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) was using the judiciary to cripple the opposition, and to warn darkly against setting Nigeria on fire.
That was not a legal response. It was a political tantrum. And it may prove very costly to Senator David Mark if, as expected, he goes to the Court of Appeal to seek a stay of execution of that judgment.
Let us be clear. Every party that loses a case has a right to be aggrieved. Every party has a right to appeal. The Constitution guarantees it. But no party has a right to a stay of execution. A stay is not a right. It is a discretionary, equitable indulgence of the court.
A court grants a stay only when the applicant shows that he has an arguable appeal, that without the stay his appeal will be rendered nugatory, and that the balance of convenience favours him. Above all, he must come to equity with clean hands.
How can a party come with clean hands when its official spokesman has just told the whole world that the judge’s judgment was written in advance, at the prompting of a political party?
How can the same party ask the judiciary for mercy, while it is publicly impugning the integrity of the judiciary?
If Senator Mark files his motion for stay before Justice Lifu himself — as he is entitled to do in the first instance — what does he expect the learned judge to do? To ignore the insult and exercise discretion in favour of the insulter? Judges are not saints. They are human beings. They read newspapers. They watch television. They are entitled to ask whether a litigant who accuses them of corruption is genuinely prepared to abide by the orders of court.
Even if Mark goes directly to the Court of Appeal — which is the wiser course — the damage is already done. The Court of Appeal will not decide the stay on the basis of press statements, but it will decide it on the basis of the record. And the record now contains a statement that suggests the ADC does not believe in the legal process, but in the politics of intimidation.
That is the tragedy here. Mark actually has a strong argument for a stay.
The election is fixed for 15 January 2027. The normal timetable for an appeal — 60 days for the Registry to compile the Record, then 45 days for the Appellant, then 45 days for the Respondent — will take us well beyond the election. If the judgment is allowed to take effect, INEC may act on it, Atiku Abubakar’s name may be removed, and by the time the Court of Appeal hears the appeal, there will be nothing left to appeal about. The appeal will be nugatory.
That is a textbook case for a stay and for accelerated hearing.
But a good legal argument can be drowned by bad political noise. When counsel appears before the Court of Appeal, he will not want to spend the first ten minutes explaining away his client’s press statement. He will want to spend it arguing the law — the alleged conflict with the earlier judgment of Justice Musa Liman, the question of internal affairs of a political party, the question of locus standi, and the irreparable harm of losing a ballot position.
Abdullahi’s statement forces counsel to do the opposite. It forces him to apologise, to dissociate, to purge contempt, before he can even get to the merits.
This is a lesson that goes beyond the ADC. It is a lesson for all political parties in Nigeria.
In political cases, we have developed a dangerous culture of playing to the gallery. When we lose in court, we do not file a Notice of Appeal and a reasoned brief. We issue a press statement. We accuse the judge. We accuse the ruling party. We threaten fire and brimstone. We appeal to emotion, to ethnicity, to religion, to the street.
It wins applause on social media. It wins nothing in court.
The courtroom is not a rally ground. The judge is not a crowd to be incited. The law is not moved by threats that Nigeria will burn. If anything, such threats harden the court against you. They suggest that you do not respect the institution whose protection you seek.
I advise political parties, their spokesmen, and their supporters: Be mindful of your language.
Disagree with a judgment robustly, if you must. Say it is wrong in law. Say it is perverse. Say you will appeal. That is your right. But do not accuse a judge of writing a judgment in advance without proof. Do not accuse the judiciary of being a tool of a political party without evidence. Do not threaten the peace of the nation because you lost a case.
If you have a grievance, pursue it by lawful measures. File your appeal. File your motion for stay. File your motion for accelerated hearing. Argue your grounds. Let the law speak.
Senator David Mark and the ADC still have a fighting chance at the Court of Appeal. The law has not closed the door against them. But they must first close the door against their own indiscipline.
They must publicly disown the intemperate language of the 5 November statement. They must reassure the court that they respect its authority, even when they disagree with its decision. They must allow their lawyers to lead, and their politicians to be silent.
For in the end, it is not the loudest voice that wins in court. It is the most lawful one.
If the ADC continues to fight the judiciary in the press, it will lose the judiciary in the courtroom. And if it loses the stay, it may lose everything — not because the law was against it, but because its own words were.
