A faction of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) led by its National Chairman, Nafiu Gombe, has rejected the reported defection and registration of Peter Obi at the party’s Enugu zonal office, declaring the process unconstitutional and invalid.
In a New Year statement issued in Abuja on Thursday, the faction—claiming to represent the authentic national leadership of the ADC—said Obi’s purported registration violated the party’s constitution and established membership procedures. The clarification followed Obi’s public announcement on Wednesday that he had joined the ADC at an event held at Nike Lake Resort in Enugu State.
At the Enugu event, Obi called for opposition forces to unite under a broad coalition to “rescue Nigeria from poverty, disunity and democratic decline,” framing his move as part of a wider realignment ahead of future elections.
However, Gombe said it was necessary to address what he described as misleading information circulating in the public domain regarding ADC’s membership process. He stressed that the party is founded on “order, discipline and strict adherence” to its constitution, which clearly defines how new members are admitted.
According to the statement, ADC’s constitution recognises ward-level registration as the sole valid entry point for membership. Prospective members, the faction said, must register in their ward of origin or residence, after which documentation is completed and a validated membership card issued.
“The party’s constitution does not provide for the registration of individuals at zonal or national offices outside of their designated wards,” Gombe said. “Any registration carried out contrary to this provision is considered irregular and invalid.”
The faction formally distanced itself from Obi’s reported registration at the Enugu zonal office, stating that the exercise did not reflect the position or approval of the constitutionally governed ADC. It added that an internal investigation had been opened into the alleged breach of due process.
The group also urged party members and the general public to disregard claims suggesting alternative channels for ADC membership, reiterating that ward-level registration remains the only recognised method under the party’s rules.
The development adds another layer of complexity to Obi’s post-2023 political trajectory, coming amid persistent factional disputes across several opposition parties. It also highlights the organisational fragility within smaller parties often targeted as platforms for opposition realignments.
Gombe’s statement followed remarks by the Labour Party leadership loyal to Julius Abure, which described Obi’s defection as a “liberation” for the party. Labour Party’s National Publicity Secretary, Obiora Ifoh, said on Wednesday that the party regretted fielding Obi as its presidential candidate in the 2023 election.
According to Ifoh, Obi’s exit merely formalised a political separation that had already existed for months amid Labour Party’s internal leadership crisis.
Taken together, the competing statements from ADC and Labour Party underscore how Obi’s attempted political repositioning is being complicated by internal party disputes, constitutional questions, and unresolved struggles over legitimacy—raising fresh doubts about the stability of opposition platforms being touted as vehicles for national coalition-building.
Factionalism, Party-Hopping and the Weakness of Nigerian Political Parties
Beyond the immediate dispute, the episode highlights a deeper structural problem in Nigerian politics: chronic factionalism and party-hopping have weakened political parties as vehicles for ideas, policy competition, and democratic accountability. As argued in Arbiterz’ earlier analysis of Obi’s politics, repeated defections—whether by Obi or other leading figures—reinforce a system in which parties function primarily as platforms for chasing power rather than institutions anchored in ideology, organisation, and voter accountability. When parties are fragmented by rival “authentic” leaderships and treated as interchangeable electoral shells, it becomes difficult for voters to assess responsibility for policy outcomes or for opposition parties to develop coherent, long-term alternatives to those in government. The result is a political culture dominated by personalities and tactical alliances, rather than disciplined parties capable of articulating programmes, training leaders, and being held to account for governing choices.
