A statesman does not choose which judgments to respect — by Okoi Obono-Obla
I have read with concern the statement issued by former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar on 6 November 2026, as reported by Punch Newspapers under the headline, “No court ruling can keep me off 2027 ballot — Atiku,” in response to the judgment of the Federal High Court of 5 November 2026 nullifying the David Mark-led leadership of the African Democratic Congress and the presidential primary that produced him as candidate.
I say this with respect for his office, his experience, and his long service to Nigeria. It is precisely because of that status that his words matter and must be held to a higher standard.
- The language of defiance is undemocratic.
To declare, as Punch reported, that “no court ruling can keep me off the ballot” and that “I am not going anywhere” is to place a personal ambition above a judicial pronouncement.
A candidate may disagree with a judgment. A candidate may appeal it. A candidate may not, in a democracy, announce in advance that he will not be bound by it.
The proper remedy was already available to him, and to his credit, he says he will use it: an appeal to the Court of Appeal. That appeal should have been the headline of his statement, not defiance.
- We can not praise the judiciary only when it agrees with us.
This is not the first judgment in this same ADC dispute.
When the Court of Appeal ordered the parties to maintain the status quo, and INEC removed the Mark-led leadership from its portal, the Atiku camp condemned it.
When the Supreme Court on 30 April 2026 set aside that status quo order and sent the matter back for expedited hearing, the same camp hailed it to high heavens as a victory for the rule of law and judicial independence.
But that Supreme Court decision did not decide the substantive question. It merely ordered that the real case be heard quickly.
When the Federal High Court then heard that real case and decided against him, the judiciary suddenly became an instrument of “manipulation,” “conjecture,” and “court manoeuvres.”
A statesman cannot have it both ways. The judiciary is not “courageous” in April and “compromised” in November simply because the outcomes differ. If we accept that logic, then no judgment will ever be legitimate unless it favours our side.
- The allegation of conspiracy is speculative and unfair.
To suggest, without evidence, that the executive and the judiciary conspired to edge out the opposition is a grave charge.
This case was not brought by the presidency or by the ruling party. It was brought by a rival faction within the ADC itself, led by Nafiu Bala Gombe. It was an intra-party dispute, which the courts were asked to resolve.
To convert that dispute into a national conspiracy theory, without producing any proof of instruction, inducement, or interference, is unfair to the judge who cannot defend himself in the press, and unfair to the institution of the judiciary itself.
It also has a chilling effect. The judges who will now hear the appeal have been told, in advance, that upholding the judgment will be seen as “manipulation,” while overturning it will be seen as “courage.” That is not argument. That is intimidation, and no democracy can thrive if judges must weigh public abuse alongside the law.
- Intra-party disputes should have been resolved by dialogue, not by scapegoating.
Intra-party disputes are debilitating and corrosive. As a statesman, one would have expected Atiku Abubakar to resolve the dispute with the aggrieved faction of his party through dialogue, rather than allow it to fester until the courts decided it for the party.
Having failed to do so, it is now convenient for him to look for a scapegoat in the APC and the Federal Government.
In 2019, the APC lost the opportunity, through intra-party infighting, to field candidates in both Rivers and Zamfara States following court rulings. In Zamfara, the Supreme Court held on 24 May 2019 that the APC had conducted no valid primaries, that it therefore had no candidates, and that the PDP runners-up were the winners. In Rivers, the Supreme Court similarly disqualified APC candidates for failure to conduct valid primaries.
The APC ultimately complied with those judgments. It did seek a review of the Zamfara judgment, which the Supreme Court struck out, but it did not declare that it would remain on the ballot regardless of what the courts said.
Atiku Abubakar, by contrast, celebrated the Zamfara outcome as a victory for democracy. He commended the Supreme Court, described the verdict as a victory for the rule of law, and said: “nothing is as pleasing to the ears of believers, as justice being served in the holy month of Ramadan.”
Today, when it is his turn to be on the receiving end of the same kind of intra-party, court-imposed disqualification, he is demonstrating sour grapes.
- The opposition must protect the institutions it hopes to inherit.
The strongest argument for the opposition is that Nigeria needs strong, independent institutions — courts that cannot be bullied by the executive, and an electoral commission that cannot be manipulated by any party.
That argument is weakened, not strengthened, when an opposition leader himself attempts to bully the courts when they rule against him.
If we want a Nigeria where court orders are obeyed even when they are inconvenient, we must model that obedience now, in opposition, not only demand it when we are in power.
My position is, therefore, this:
Atiku Abubakar has every right to appeal the judgment of 5 November 2026. He has a legitimate legal argument to make, particularly in light of the earlier judgment by Justice Liman. Let that appeal be argued on the law in court.
But he should withdraw the language of defiance. He should desist from imputing conspiracy without evidence. And he should affirm, clearly and unconditionally, that he will abide by the final decision of the appellate courts.
That is what a Nigerian statesman does. That is what democracy requires.
