ABUJA — The leadership crisis rocking the African Democratic Congress (ADC) has taken another legal turn, with Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi, who describes himself as the appellant/applicant in the ongoing dispute, asking the Court of Appeal in Abuja to reject allegations that he deliberately delayed the transmission of the record of appeal to the Supreme Court.
In a counter-affidavit filed in Appeal No. CA/ABJ/664/2026 and Motion No. CA/ABJ/PRE/ROA/1062M1/2026, Abdullahi, suing for himself and on behalf of the caretaker/interim National Working Committee of the ADC, described claims contained in the respondents’ counter-affidavit as false, misleading and calculated to portray him as a litigant deliberately frustrating the appeal process.
The affidavit was deposed to by Anthonia Nwafor, identified as the Litigation Secretary of M.E. Sheriff & Co., counsel representing the appellant/applicant.
A major point of contention is the allegation that Abdullahi failed to compile and transmit the record of appeal after the record had allegedly been settled.
The appellant’s response is that the record was in fact settled at the Registry of the Court of Appeal on August 6, 2026, after which his counsel caused the settled record to be compiled in three volumes for service on the parties.
According to the affidavit, the compiled record was subsequently served between August 14 and 18, 2026 on counsel representing several of the respondents, with proof of service and acknowledgements of receipt allegedly attached to the court processes as Exhibit BA1.
The appellant therefore argues that the claim that he failed to compile and transmit the record is inconsistent with the documentary evidence before the court.
The legal dispute, however, appears to turn on the distinction between compiling and serving the record and its formal transmission through the Supreme Court’s electronic filing system.
The affidavit states that the compiled record was uploaded onto the Supreme Court of Nigeria’s e-filing portal on August 18 and 19, 2026, with printouts of the alleged uploads attached as Exhibits BA2 and BA3.
Abdullahi’s position is that after the upload, the appellant and his lawyers were awaiting the approval and generation of a payment link or invoice required for payment of the prescribed filing fees.
The affidavit characterises that stage as an administrative and ministerial process within the Supreme Court’s e-filing system and outside the direct control of the appellant and his counsel.
On that basis, the appellant maintains that the allegations contained in paragraphs 4(xi), 4(xii) and 4(xiii) of the respondents’ counter-affidavit are contradicted by documentary evidence.
The development adds another layer to the wider legal and political struggle over the control and leadership of the ADC, a party that has emerged as a major platform in the realignment of opposition forces ahead of the 2027 general elections.
At the centre of the immediate legal battle is therefore not merely the question of who complied with a procedural requirement, but whether the appeal process has been deliberately delayed by any of the parties.
The Court of Appeal will ultimately determine the weight to attach to the competing affidavits and documentary evidence placed before it.
For now, Abdullahi’s filing presents a clear rebuttal to the allegation of deliberate delay, insisting that the record was settled, compiled, served on the relevant parties and subsequently uploaded to the Supreme Court’s e-filing portal.
The case is expected to remain significant in determining the next stage of the protracted ADC leadership dispute and the legal authority of the competing factions within the party.
