A FORENSIC AND CYBERSECURITY ANALYSIS OF THE AFRICAN DEMOCRATIC PARTY (ADC) LEADERSHIP DISPUTE: EXAMINING DOCUMENT AUTHENTICITY AND AUTHORSHIP CLAIMS

 

Since the saga of the ADC leadership tussle, different opinions have flooded the media space, reflecting various ideas and interests. Some approach it from political perspectives, others through activism, and some from legal perspectives. However, very few opinions have explored the forensic investigation or cybersecurity perspectives on this issue.

I want to maintain neutrality in this case, not siding with any party or engaging in the politicking surrounding it. I would like readers to view this as a research or academic exercise, and the ideas presented are not a court proceeding, nor should they be considered a final judgment.

Background of this Event

NAFIU Bala is a Nigerian Politician who served as the Deputy National Chairman of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) before May 17, 2025. The coalition led by political heavyweights like Atiku Abubakar, Peter Obi, David Mark, and others, having been unsuccessful in registering their new political party with the Independent Electoral Commission (INEC), opted to use the ADC as their campaign vehicle for the 2027 general election. After several meetings and agreements between the parties, the ADC Chairman, Ralph Nwosu, and other members of the national executive council, as well as other party leaders, resigned their positions and stepped down on July 2, 2025. During the coalition unveiling on the same day, David Mark emerged as the Caretaker Chairman (can also be called National Chairman), and Ralph Aregbesolu emerged as the Secretary, followed by other key party positions being reshuffled.

On August 1, 2025, NAFIU surprisingly denied ever resigning, calling the document “false, “deceptive,” and “fake”; those were his words. However, the ADC's new leadership claimed that the resignation was officially submitted to INEC as evidence of his exit on August 12, 2025.

Unsatisfied with the event and development of the party, NAFIU Bala filed a case at the Federal High Court in Abuja in Suit FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025, asking the court to (1) stop the rival faction (Linked to David Mark) and other key new leaders from acting or being identified as part leaders. (2) An order seeking to restrain INEC from recognizing them, (3) recognize him as the authentic acting National Chairman of the party, (4) halt party activities pending the determination of the court.

While the court did not immediately grant the request in the case, the Federal High Court did order the respondents (David Mark and INEC) to show cause why the request should not be granted. The David Mark-led leadership, having argued that the Federal High Court has no jurisdiction over the case, appealed their case to a higher court (the Court of Appeal) in their bid to challenge the jurisdiction of the lower court over party leadership. The Appeal Court, in its wisdom, ruled that the case was incompetent and unmeritorious and directed them to go back to the lower court for a proper case hearing.

 

The Problem

If you can recall, on May 17, 2025, the entire National Executive Committee (NEC) under the leadership of Hon. Ralph Nwosu resigned their positions, of which NAFIU Bala was allegedly a part. In fact, the Ralph Nwosu administration sent documents of those resignations to INEC on the 21st of July, 2025, and INEC received them on the 12^th of August, 2025. The key visible problem in this leadership dispute is that Hon. NAFIU Bala is claiming that the resignation letter written on May 17, 2025, was allegedly forged and that by virtue of their party constitution, the chairman, having resigned, makes him an automatic authentic chairman of the party.

Observation

I have observed concerning the digital evidence I have obtained from this case, on documents I mark Exhibit I, that the purported notification of resignation of Hon. NAFIU Bala to INEC, written on July 21, 2025, and received on 12 Aug 2025, was signed by both Ralph Okey Nwosu and Baba Abdullahi as National Chairman and National Secretary, respectively.  This raises a serious legal question of (1) whether a resigned chairman of a political party has a locus standi to act on behalf of the party in the same position, (2) whether the resignation of the entire party leadership on May 17, 2025, was authentic and legally admissible.  For a clearer picture of these two questions, note that from the day of the purported resignation of May 17, 2025, to the day the document was authored (or written) on July 21, 2025, makes it approximately 66 days. It is left for the court to interpret these 66 days in the eyes of the law or to leave them as an internal party affair.

 

Exhibit I: Certified True copy of Letter of Notification from INEC 

 

The second observation, accompanied by my tagged Exhibit II, concerns the alleged resignation letter of NAFIU Bala as the Deputy National Chairman. Upon examining the document, it can be observed that the letter follows a standardized template. Specifically, the body of the letter appears to be typed, while designated spaces are left for the insertion of names and other details. This may suggest that the document was part of an agreed or pre-structured format, possibly at the National Executive Committee (NEC) level, where affected members were expected to fill in their respective names and other necessary details.

 

Exhibit II:  Alleged NAFIU Bala Resignation Letter

The central focus of this observation, which forms a key aspect of this forensic research, is a multilingual and behavioral analysis of NAFIU Bala’s writing patterns. The handwritten components of the disputed document introduce an additional layer of forensic consideration, particularly given the absence of visible corrections or cancellations.

In forensic linguistics, when an individual is known to exhibit consistent orthographic patterns such as recurring misspellings, these patterns may serve as informal markers of authorship. The recurrence of such a pattern in Exhibit II raises serious forensic questions regarding authorship or the conditions under which the document was produced.

To buttress my assertions above, I obtained forensic evidence from his Facebook profile, where there exists an incorrect spelling pattern in his posts. He repeatedly typed the word “chiarman.” Instead of the correct spelling “chairman”. These consistent spelling deviations have been previously observed in attributed writings and thus introduce a point of serious comparative forensic interest. Such deviations and repeated misspellings may warrant a deeper comparative analysis using verified handwriting and writing samples. I was unable to gather other written documents, with which we may be able to compare the signature and handwriting. However, Evidence III and IV raise a serious forensic issue as it reflects authorship of documents. Well, as a forensic analyst, this evidence, combined with attributions and patterns from his previous written documents, suggests that he may likely be the owner of the documents. What I meant by “Owner” is that he may be the one who wrote his name and his designation in that document. You can see Evidence III and IV for confirmation.

 

 Exhibit III: Bala Posts on June 7, 2024, suggesting a misspelling or pattern of writing “CHIARMAN”

 

Exhibit IV: Bala Post on July 11, 2025, with the same misspelling pattern

While I can’t confirm the signature verification in Exhibit II document, because of a lack of access to his previous signatures, I will suggest that such should also be carried out to expand this forensic investigation if samples of his previous signatures are found or obtained through court orders. The handwriting of the said evidence (Exhibit II) should also be compared to his former handwritten documents to analyze similarity.

Another observation I made is both technical and behavioral. Exhibit II shows that the letter was signed on May 18, 2025, while the first public denial of the said document occurred on August 1, 2025. Does this mean that it took NAFIU Bala 76 days to realize that his signature was allegedly forged and that the document was not authored by him? Or does it suggest that an office as high as that of a Deputy National Chairman may not immediately respond to such developments?

There is no denying that there were media publications regarding these resignations, not only his, but those of the entire NEC of the party, across platforms such as Arise News, Channels TV, and others, which consistently reported the resignations and the emergence of a new leadership under David Mark. This raises a question: why did it take such a length of time for NAFIU Bala to publicly dispute Exhibit II as a forged document?

While delay in response may raise analytical questions, it is also important to consider that awareness, internal party processes, or other contextual factors may influence the timing of such a denial. Additionally, it may be observed that he appears to be the only member of the NEC or former leadership to publicly dispute his resignation. If the resignation letters were indeed forged, as claimed, one might expect broader refutations or calls for investigation from other affected members.

The sequence of events, from reported resignations to restructuring and the emergence of new leadership, was widely covered in the media. However, it cannot be conclusively established, based solely on this, what each individual knew or when they became aware of these developments.

I will conclude the analysis at this point, as further discussion may extend into political and legal territories, which I intentionally avoid in order to maintain neutrality.

Limitations:

This analysis is limited by the absence of access to original documents, certified handwriting samples, and laboratory-based forensic tools. As such, all observations are based on publicly available materials and should be interpreted as preliminary forensic insights rather than definitive conclusions.

Conclusions:

While I will not dive much into the legal perspectives of this case, I would like to advise both parties on the legal implications. At the constitutional level, the disputes on Exhibit II engage the right of fair hearing under Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution, since party leadership affects civil rights and obligations, and any criminal allegation of forgery must also be approached through the presumption of innocence under Section 36(5). At the criminal law level, Section 464 of the Criminal Code defines a false document as one that purports to have been made by a person who did not make or authorize it, while Sections 465 and 468 address forgery and the uttering of a false document as genuine. The party alleging resignation or forgery bears the burden of proof, and a disputed signature is properly tested through documentary evidence, chain of custody, and expert handwriting or document examination. I would love to see how this will be handled in the courtroom and how the court will resolve this case for the parties.

Disclaimer:

All references in this report are derived from publicly available sources. Dates and times cited are based on information obtained from recognized news and television media. Screenshots included were sourced from Nafiu Bala’s publicly accessible Facebook page.

Get the complete document here:  publication link