The Independent National Electoral Commission has been told to stay away. The former Senate President has been barred from interfering. And the African Democratic Congress is back in legal turmoil.
The Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday restrained INEC from recognising or participating in any congress organised by a disputed caretaker leadership of the ADC. The court, in a judgment delivered by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, also barred former Senate President David Mark and other prominent figures in the party from interfering with the functions and tenure of elected state executives.
The ruling is the latest development in the festering leadership dispute within the ADC, with clear implications for the control of party structures ahead of future political activities. For a party that has been trying to position itself as a serious opposition force, the judgment is a major setback.
The Lawsuit
The case arose from an originating summons filed by Norman Obinna and six others on behalf of state chairpersons and executive committees of the party. The plaintiffs challenged the legality of actions taken by a caretaker or interim national leadership — particularly the move to organise state congresses through an appointed committee.
They argued that the caretaker body lacked constitutional authority to organise such congresses or to appoint any committee for that purpose. According to them, only duly elected party organs recognised under the party’s constitution possess the power to conduct congresses. The plaintiffs asked the court to affirm the tenure of the state executive committees and restrain any parallel processes that could undermine their authority.
The defendants included the ADC, David Mark, Patricia Akwashiki, Malam Bolaji Abdullahi, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, Oserheimen Osunbor, and INEC. The plaintiffs maintained that under both the ADC constitution and the 1999 Constitution, the tenure of state executive committees subsists until valid congresses are conducted in accordance with laid-down procedures. Any attempt to bypass the elected structures, they argued, undermines internal party democracy and erodes the rule of law within the party.
The Court’s Reasoning
In resolving the dispute, Justice Abdulmalik held that the claims brought before the court were valid and deserving of judicial consideration, especially in view of alleged breaches of constitutional and statutory provisions. She stated that she found “the issue in the originating summons meritorious.”
The judge framed the central issue as whether Mark and the other defendants had the constitutional or statutory authority to assume the powers of elected state organs of the ADC, whose tenure is guaranteed under the party’s constitution. She relied on section 223 of the 1999 Constitution, which mandates political parties to conduct periodic elections based on democratic principles, as well as Article 23 of the ADC Constitution, which provides that national and state officers shall hold office for a maximum of two terms spanning eight years.
“The question is whether there is any infraction committed by Mr. Mark and co-defendants when they convened meetings and appointed a body known as a congress committee to organise state congresses,” she said.
Internal Party Affairs vs. Court Intervention
The defendants argued that the dispute related strictly to the internal affairs of the party and was therefore outside the jurisdiction of the court. They also contended that the plaintiffs lacked locus standi to institute the action and that the suit was incompetent. They further submitted that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust internal dispute resolution mechanisms before approaching the court.
Justice Abdulmalik acknowledged the settled legal position that courts are generally reluctant to interfere in internal party matters but clarified its limits. “The law is settled that courts will not interfere. However, where there is an allegation of breach of constitutional or statutory provisions, the court has a duty to intervene,” she ruled.
“Where a party alleges that its constitution has been violated, the court is bound to adjudicate. Any argument that this court lacks jurisdiction on that basis fails,” she added.
The judge stressed that political parties must operate strictly within the confines of their constitutions, noting that any deviation from prescribed procedures, particularly in leadership matters, cannot be justified under the guise of internal autonomy. She found that the procedure adopted by the defendants — including the appointment of a “congress committee” — was not recognised by the ADC constitution and therefore invalid.
The Orders
Consequently, the court held that the tenure of the state executive committees remains valid and must be allowed to run its full course without interference. The judge further ruled that only those elected structures have the authority to organise state congresses, effectively nullifying any process initiated by the caretaker leadership.
In a set of far-reaching orders, the court set aside the appointment of the congress committee and restrained INEC from recognising any congress organised by it. The court also restrained Mark and the other defendants from organising congresses or conventions outside the provisions of the party’s constitution. Additionally, they were barred from taking any steps capable of undermining or disrupting the authority of the state executive committees.
What This Means for the ADC
The judgment is a significant victory for the faction led by Obinna and the elected state executives. It affirms their tenure and legitimacy while stripping the caretaker leadership — including David Mark — of the authority to organise congresses. INEC, which had previously withdrawn recognition of the party’s leadership structures amid the dispute, is now legally barred from recognising any congress organised by the disputed caretaker group.
For the ADC, the ruling adds another layer of complexity to an already chaotic internal situation. The party has been grappling with overlapping factions, expelled members claiming to be leaders, and a national convention that defied INEC’s warnings. Now, a court has told the caretaker leadership that its congress committee was invalid and that the elected state executives remain in charge.
The party’s leadership, aligned with David Mark, has insisted that the ADC remains intact following its April 14 national convention. But this judgment undermines that claim. If the court says the caretaker leadership cannot organise congresses, and INEC cannot recognise them, then the party’s ability to conduct internal elections is seriously compromised.
The Bottom Line
The Federal High Court in Abuja has restrained INEC from recognising or participating in any congress organised by the disputed caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress. The court also barred former Senate President David Mark and other defendants from interfering with elected state executives or organising congresses outside the party’s constitution. Justice Joyce Abdulmalik ruled that the caretaker leadership’s appointment of a “congress committee” was not recognised by the ADC constitution and was therefore invalid.
The plaintiffs, led by Norman Obinna, argued that only duly elected party organs have the authority to conduct congresses. The defendants contended that the matter was an internal party affair outside the court’s jurisdiction. The judge disagreed, holding that where constitutional or statutory provisions are allegedly breached, the court has a duty to intervene.
The ruling affirms the tenure of elected state executives and nullifies any congressional processes initiated by the caretaker leadership. For the ADC, the judgment is a legal blow that further complicates an already fractured party. And for INEC, the message is: stay away from congresses organised by a leadership the court has now declared constitutionally invalid.
