The Federal High Court in Abuja has issued an order restraining the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising or participating in any congress organised by a disputed caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
In a judgment delivered on Wednesday, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik ruled that INEC must not engage with any process conducted by the contested leadership, pending the resolution of the underlying dispute.
The ruling marks a significant development in the protracted leadership crisis within the ADC, with implications for the control of party structures ahead of future political activities.
The suit was instituted by Norman Obinna and six others, representing state chairpersons and executive committees of the party. The plaintiffs challenged the legality of actions taken by an interim national leadership, particularly its decision to organise state congresses through an appointed committee.
They argued that the caretaker body lacked constitutional authority to conduct congresses or constitute such a committee, insisting that only duly elected organs recognised by the party’s constitution possess that power.
Delivering judgment, Justice Abdulmalik held that the claims were valid and warranted judicial intervention, citing alleged breaches of constitutional and statutory provisions.
She noted that the central issue was whether the defendants, including Mr Mark, had the legal authority to assume the functions of elected state organs whose tenure is protected under the party’s constitution.
Relying on Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution and Article 23 of the ADC Constitution, the court affirmed that party leadership must emerge through democratic processes and that the tenure of elected officials cannot be arbitrarily truncated.
“The issue in the originating summons is meritorious,” the judge ruled.
On the defendants’ argument that the matter was an internal party affair beyond the court’s jurisdiction, the court acknowledged the general legal principle but clarified that judicial intervention is justified where there is an alleged violation of constitutional provisions.
“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 held.
The court found that the process adopted by the defendants, including the appointment of a “congress committee,” was not recognised under the ADC constitution and was therefore invalid.
Consequently, it affirmed the tenure of the state executive committees and ruled that only duly elected structures have the authority to organise state congresses.
In its orders, the court set aside the appointment of the congress committee and restrained INEC from recognising any congress conducted under its authority.
It also barred Mr Mark and other defendants from organising congresses or conventions outside the provisions of the party’s constitution, as well as from taking steps capable of undermining the authority of state executives.
The defendants in the suit include the ADC, David Mark, Patricia Akwashiki, Bolaji Abdullahi, Rauf Aregbesola, Oserheimen Osunbor, and INEC.
While the plaintiffs maintained that caretaker committees undermine internal party democracy and violate both the party’s constitution and national laws, the defendants argued that the matter was non-justiciable, questioned the plaintiffs’ legal standing, and said internal dispute resolution mechanisms were not exhausted.
The court, however, dismissed those objections, reinforcing the supremacy of constitutional compliance in party affairs.
