Aare Amerijoye DOT.B
There are press statements one reads with interest. There are others one reads with concern. And then there are those rare political offerings so magnificently overcooked, so drenched in self-importance, and so completely detached from internal coherence that the only proper response is quiet reflection followed by careful laughter.
The latest statement issued in the name of the so-called “genuine leadership” of the African Democratic Congress under Mr Nafiu Bala Gombe belongs firmly in that category. It is less a political clarification and more a performance of agitation, dressed in official language and presented as authority.
What makes the entire exercise particularly curious is that it attempts to manufacture uncertainty where none exists.
His Excellency David Mark remains the Chairman of the African Democratic Congress.
That fact is neither fluid nor negotiable. It does not bend to press statements, nor does it yield to noise. The more it is challenged by agitation, the more it stands out in clarity.
The difficulty, it would seem, is not a crisis of leadership within the party, but a calculated attempt to destabilise what is already settled.
And this is where clarity must replace politeness.
What is unfolding is not merely disagreement. It bears the troubling features of sabotage—an effort to fracture cohesion, confuse the public, and weaken the structural integrity of the party from within.
Mr Nafiu Bala Gombe, by the weight of his actions and posture, increasingly presents not as a custodian of party order, but as a willing instrument in this destabilisation. In political terms, he functions less as a leader and more as a pawn—one deployed, whether knowingly or otherwise, in a broader attempt to unsettle a platform that is finding its footing.
But political pawns, however animated, do not determine the direction of the board.
What deepens the concern, however, is not merely the pattern of disruption, but the growing impression of external convenience.
For it would be politically naïve to ignore how such internal fractures often align—too conveniently—with the interests of those who benefit from a weakened opposition. When a party begins to organise, consolidate, and position itself as a credible alternative, it is not uncommon for destabilising currents to emerge, sometimes from within, but rarely without external encouragement.
In this light, the role being played begins to raise a more troubling question.
Whether by design or by misjudgment, this pattern of conduct increasingly serves the interests of the ruling establishment by fragmenting opposition coherence and diluting collective strength. And in politics, it is not always necessary to wear a uniform to serve a cause. Sometimes, disruption alone is sufficient contribution.
This is why such actions must not be viewed in isolation. They must be understood for what they risk becoming—a convenient instrument, however unintended, in the broader effort to stifle opposition momentum and keep viable alternatives perpetually distracted.
There is a familiar pattern in factional politics: the sudden emergence of self-appointed custodians precisely where structure and leadership are already in place.
It is the spectacle of individuals who, unable to build consensus within established frameworks, attempt to simulate legitimacy through declaration. Those who cannot command recognition internally now seek to impose it externally. Those who cannot earn authority through process attempt to approximate it through performance.
But political authority does not operate on wishful thinking. It rests on structure, recognition, and lawful standing.
And in this case, that standing remains firmly with His Excellency David Mark.
What we are witnessing, therefore, is not a contest of legitimacy, but a disruption staged in the language of legitimacy.
The statement itself reinforces this impression. It is saturated with accusation, inflated with moral language, and constructed in a tone that seeks to overwhelm rather than persuade. Yet the more it speaks, the more it reveals its own central weakness: the absence of settled authority.
For there is a difference between asserting leadership and possessing it.
There is also a difference between political structure and rhetorical insistence.
No matter how forcefully it is written, a statement cannot convert assertion into legitimacy. It can only repeat it.
And repetition, however loud, does not alter established facts.
His Excellency David Mark remains the Chairman of the ADC.
Let the agitation continue if it must. Let the dust rise. It does not change the ground upon which authority stands.
Indeed, the situation calls to mind a simple but enduring truth: activity is not the same as control. Noise is not the same as ownership. Movement is not the same as progress.
A goat may drag its feet across the soil, scatter dust, and disturb the air. It does not, by that effort, become the owner of the land.
In the same manner, agitation does not translate into authority.
What is required now is not indulgence of disruption, but resistance to it.
Members, stakeholders, and supporters of the ADC must recognise this moment for what it is: a test of internal discipline and collective clarity. A party that allows destabilisation to masquerade as alternative leadership risks weakening itself at the very moment it should be consolidating.
This must not be allowed.
The attempt to distort leadership, to confuse structure, and to dilute authority must be firmly resisted. Not with counter-noise, but with clarity. Not with panic, but with discipline. Not with reaction, but with resolve.
For the more organised a platform becomes, the more it attracts attempts at internal disruption.
And the more necessary it becomes to defend its coherence.
The more the statement leans into moral accusation, the more it exposes its structural fragility. It speaks extensively of integrity, corruption, manipulation, and institutional compromise. These are serious issues in any democracy, and they deserve serious engagement.
But seriousness requires grounding. It requires credibility. It requires coherence between claim and standing.
Without that, even the most weighty language risks collapsing under its own excess.
What should have been a measured intervention becomes instead an overextended performance. What could have been a structured clarification becomes a cascade of assertions. What might have persuaded becomes something that invites scrutiny.
And scrutiny, in this case, leads back to the same point.
Leadership within the ADC is not determined by volume. It is not allocated through agitation. It is not transferred by rhetorical insistence.
It remains where it lawfully resides.
With His Excellency David Mark.
This is why the entire episode, while dramatic, ultimately resolves into something far simpler than it attempts to appear. It is not a constitutional upheaval. It is not an institutional rupture. It is not a redefinition of leadership.
It is a disruption without foundation.
And such disruptions, no matter how loudly amplified, do not rewrite established authority.
That said, there is a broader lesson here that extends beyond the internal affairs of any single party.
The Nigerian public continues to live within a demanding economic and social environment. Daily realities remain difficult. Citizens navigate rising costs, constrained opportunities, and institutional pressures that require serious governance attention.
In such a context, political actors must be careful not to substitute performance for purpose.
And the government in power must be especially careful.
It should not interpret factional disagreements elsewhere as a measure of public satisfaction. It should not confuse the noise of political actors with the silence of citizens. It should not assume that because some are preoccupied with internal disputes, the broader national expectations have been suspended.
They have not.
Governance remains accountable to lived experience, not comparative distraction.
The condition of the people is not evaluated against the confusion of political factions. It is evaluated against the realities of daily life.
And those realities remain the true test of leadership.
That is why the present moment calls for clarity, not theatrics.
It calls for structure, not substitution.
It calls for recognition of what is established, not attempts to overwrite it through insistence.
Within the ADC, that clarity is straightforward.
His Excellency David Mark remains the Chairman.
No volume of repetition alters that.
No accumulation of statements displaces it.
No agitation converts itself into legitimacy.
In the end, what remains after the noise settles is not the performance, but the structure.
Not the declaration, but the recognition.
Not the dust in the air, but the ground beneath it.
And on that ground, the position is clear.
Authority has not moved.
It has only been challenged by disruption—and disruption must be resisted.
Aare Amerijoye DOT.B
Director General,
The Narrative Force.
