The Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja has, in a split decision of two-to-one, upheld a Federal High Court judgment restraining the Independent National Electoral Commission from recognising state congresses and a national convention conducted by committees appointed by the Senator David Mark-led caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress.
In the majority judgment delivered on Monday, July 13, 2026, Justice Okon Abang held that the appellate court found no reason to interfere with the judgment delivered by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court in Abuja on April 29, 2026.
Justice Abang and Justice Donatus Okorowo formed the majority, while the presiding justice of the three-member panel, Justice Abba Mohammed, delivered a dissenting judgment.
The majority upheld the order restraining INEC from recognising, accepting or acting on the outcome of congresses conducted by committees constituted by the Mark-led caretaker or interim National Working Committee.
The appellate court also affirmed the order restraining the caretaker leadership from interfering with the tenure and functions of the party’s elected State Working Committees and State Executive Committees.
It held that the responsibility for conducting state congresses rested with duly elected state executive committees and not the national caretaker leadership of a political party.
The court said it had a duty to intervene to “prevent anarchy and ensure the survival of democracy in Nigeria,” maintaining that the dispute involved alleged violations of constitutional and statutory provisions and could not be dismissed merely as an internal political party affair.
“Once a complaint before the court is anchored on a constitutional infraction, the shield of internal affairs drops and the veil is lifted for judicial intervention,” Justice Abang held in the majority judgment.
The appellate court relied on a recent Supreme Court decision arising from the leadership crisis in the Peoples Democratic Party to hold that courts could intervene in political party disputes where breaches of the Constitution or other laws were alleged.
It consequently dismissed the appeal marked CA/ABJ/CV/608/2026, which the ADC filed to set aside the Federal High Court judgment.
The majority further held that the state congresses and national convention conducted by the Mark-led leadership amounted to a nullity because they were held in alleged disobedience to a subsisting order issued by the Federal High Court on April 14, 2026.
The court awarded N10 million in costs against the ADC.
In his minority judgment, Justice Mohammed disagreed with the majority and held that the dispute was a non-justiciable internal affair of a political party.
He ruled that the Federal High Court was wrong to assume jurisdiction over the matter and would have allowed the ADC’s appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial court.
Origin of the dispute
The case arose from suit FHC/ABJ/CS/581/2026, filed by Don Norman Obinna, Johnny Tovie Derek, Obah C. Ehigiator, Olona Yinka, Dr Charles Idowu Omideji, Samuel Pam Gyang and Obianyo Patrick.
The plaintiffs instituted the suit for themselves and on behalf of the state chairmen and State Executive Committees of the ADC.
The defendants were the ADC; Senator David Mark; Senator Patricia Akwashiki; Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi; Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola; Professor Oserheimen Osunbor, who was sued on behalf of the caretaker or interim National Working Committee; and INEC.
The plaintiffs challenged the decision of the Mark-led caretaker leadership to appoint committees to conduct state congresses scheduled for April 2026.
They argued that congresses conducted under committees appointed by the national caretaker leadership would violate the ADC Constitution because only duly elected organs of the party had the authority to conduct such congresses.
On April 29, Justice Abdulmalik agreed with the plaintiffs and held that neither the 1999 Constitution nor the ADC Constitution empowered the Mark-led caretaker National Working Committee to appoint committees to conduct state congresses.
The trial court held that the four-year tenure of the ADC’s State Working Committees and State Executive Committees remained valid and subsisting pending the conduct of properly constituted congresses and the convocation of a lawful national convention.
It found that the evidence before it established that the tenure of the elected state executives had not expired and must be allowed to run its full course without interference.
Justice Abdulmalik relied on Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution, which requires the leadership of political parties to be periodically elected on democratic principles.
She also referred to Article 23 of the ADC Constitution, which provides that national and state officers may hold office for a maximum of two terms spanning eight years.
The judge acknowledged that courts ordinarily refrain from interfering in the domestic affairs of political parties but held that judicial intervention was permissible where a breach of constitutional or statutory provisions was alleged.
The court consequently nullified processes initiated by the Mark-led caretaker leadership for the conduct of the disputed congresses.
Before determining the substantive case, the Federal High Court dismissed a preliminary objection filed by the defendants challenging the competence of the suit and the court’s jurisdiction.
It held that the action concerned the statutory functions of INEC and therefore fell within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court under Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution.
The court also rejected the argument that the plaintiffs should have exhausted the ADC’s internal dispute-resolution mechanisms before approaching the court.
It held that the plaintiffs had sufficient legal interest, or locus standi, to institute the action.
Possible implications for 2027 elections
The Court of Appeal judgment could raise fresh legal questions over candidates and party officers produced through the congresses and national convention conducted by the Mark-led leadership ahead of the 2027 general elections.
Those potentially affected include former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and other candidates whose nominations were linked to the disputed party structures.
However, the final effect of the judgment on individual candidacies may depend on subsequent action by INEC and the outcome of any appeal before the Supreme Court.
Following the judgment, ADC National Welfare Secretary Nkem Ukandu said the party would challenge the decision at the Supreme Court.
The post “ADC Crisis” Appeal Court Bars INEC From Recognising David Mark-Led Congresses Upholds Judgment In 2–1 Split appeared first on TheNigeriaLawyer.
