The ongoing ADC primary row has taken a dramatic turn following allegations by the chairman of the African Democratic Congress Electoral Committee in Adamawa State, Dr. Nicholas Msheliza, that former Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Babachir Lawal, attempted to influence the outcome of the party’s presidential primary election. Msheliza, who also served as Returning Officer for the exercise in Adamawa, claimed he was pressured to alter officially compiled results in favour of businessman Mohammed Hayatu-Deen.
Speaking on the controversy surrounding the presidential primary, Msheliza alleged that Lawal contacted him after results from the exercise had already been compiled and documented.
According to him, the former SGF demanded that the outcome recorded in Hong Local Government Area be reversed to favour Hayatu-Deen instead of former Vice President Atiku Abubakar. Msheliza said he rejected the request and refused to tamper with the electoral outcome.
“When Babachir Lawal got wind of the results, he called and requested that I reverse the results to favour his candidate. I refused to carry out his criminal directive,” Msheliza said. The allegation has added a new dimension to the growing ADC primary row within the party.
Providing details of the results he claimed were officially recorded, Msheliza stated that Atiku secured a commanding victory in Hong Local Government Area. According to the Returning Officer, Atiku polled 11,991 votes, while Mohammed Hayatu-Deen received 2,493 votes. Former Minister of Transportation, Rotimi Amaechi, was said to have secured 377 votes.
Msheliza maintained that the figures were properly documented before any subsequent developments occurred. The publication of these figures has intensified interest in the ADC primary row, particularly regarding the integrity of the party’s electoral process.
The Returning Officer further alleged that shortly after he declined the request to alter the results, Lawal dissolved the existing local electoral committee and established what he described as a parallel structure. According to him, the new committee conducted separate exercises in several local government areas, including Hong, Madagali, Michika, and Mubi North.
Msheliza claimed the process was carried out without consultation with the original committee and without the necessary electoral materials required for a legitimate exercise. He argued that the actions led to the emergence of what he called “concocted results” that differed from the officially recorded figures. The allegations have become central to the unfolding ADC primary row.
Msheliza insisted that the original committee had already completed and documented the electoral process before the parallel team allegedly arrived. “This was done without consultation and without proper electoral materials. The original results had already been documented before the parallel team arrived,” he said.
The Returning Officer argued that any results produced through the alternative arrangement should be subjected to scrutiny and compared against the original records. His comments have raised further questions among party members monitoring the ADC primary row and its implications for internal party democracy.
As the controversy deepens, Msheliza challenged Lawal to make public any result sheets supporting his position. The electoral committee chairman stated that he was prepared to present documentary evidence backing his account of events and the results announced by the original committee.
He maintained that transparency remained the best way to resolve the dispute and allow party members and the public to assess competing claims. The demand for documentary evidence has become a key issue in the ongoing ADC primary row.
Political analysts note that disputes arising from party primaries can have significant implications for party cohesion and public confidence. Internal disagreements over candidate selection processes often attract national attention, particularly when senior party figures are involved. Observers say the handling of such disputes can influence perceptions of transparency and institutional credibility.
The latest allegations are likely to increase scrutiny of the ADC’s internal electoral processes as preparations continue for future political contests. For now, ADC primary row remains unresolved, with competing narratives continuing to shape the debate.
