The Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday stopped the Independent National Electoral Commission from acknowledging or taking part in any congress conducted by a disputed caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress.
The court, in a ruling delivered by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, also prohibited former Senate President, David Mark, and other key figures in the party from meddling in the duties and tenure of elected state executives.
The decision marks the latest twist in the lingering leadership crisis within the ADC, carrying significant consequences for control of party structures ahead of upcoming political engagements.
The suit originated from an originating summons filed by Norman Obinna and six others representing state chairpersons and executive committees of the party.
The claimants questioned the legality of steps taken by a caretaker or interim national leadership, particularly the attempt to conduct state congresses through an appointed committee.
They maintained that the caretaker body had no constitutional backing to organise such congresses or to constitute any committee for that purpose.
According to them, only properly elected party organs recognised by the party’s constitution have the authority to conduct congresses.
The claimants therefore urged the court to uphold the tenure of the state executive committees and halt any parallel arrangements capable of weakening their authority.
In determining the matter, Justice Abdulmalik ruled that the claims presented before the court were valid and warranted judicial intervention, especially in light of alleged violations of constitutional and statutory provisions.
She stated that she found “the issue in the originating summons meritorious”.
The judge identified the core issue as whether the second to sixth defendants, including Mark, possessed the constitutional or statutory authority to assume the roles of elected state organs of the ADC, whose tenure is protected under the party’s constitution.
She referenced section 223 of the 1999 Constitution, which requires political parties to conduct periodic elections grounded in democratic principles, alongside Article 23 of the ADC Constitution, which stipulates that national and state officers shall serve a maximum of two terms spanning eight years.
According to her, “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.”
Addressing the defence by the defendants that the issue was an internal party matter and thus outside the court’s jurisdiction, the judge acknowledged the established legal stance but clarified its boundaries.
She ruled that although courts are generally reluctant to interfere in internal party disputes, they will step in where there is a clear breach of constitutional or statutory 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 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.
Justice Abdulmalik emphasised that political parties must function strictly within the framework of their constitutions, noting that any departure from laid-down procedures, especially in leadership matters, cannot be defended under the guise of internal autonomy.
She held that the method adopted by the defendants, including the creation of a “congress committee,” was not recognised by the ADC constitution and was therefore invalid.
Consequently, the court ruled that the tenure of the state executive committees remains intact and must be allowed to run its full course without interference.
The judge further held that only those elected structures have the authority to organise state congresses, thereby nullifying any process initiated by the caretaker leadership.
In a series of far-reaching orders, the court nullified the appointment of the congress committee and barred INEC from recognising any congress conducted by it.
The court also restrained Mark and the other defendants from organising congresses or conventions outside the provisions of the party’s constitution.
They were equally prohibited from taking any action capable of undermining or disrupting the authority of the state executive committees.
According to media reports, “the claimants, led by Obinna, filed the suit in a representative capacity on behalf of ADC state chairmen and executive committees nationwide.”
The defendants in the case include the ADC, David Mark, Patricia Akwashiki, Malam Bolaji Abdullahi, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, Oserheimen Osunbor, and INEC.
In their arguments, the claimants challenged the legality of caretaker or interim national working committees and urged the court to restrain INEC from recognising or participating in any congress conducted under such arrangements.
They argued that under both the ADC constitution and the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the tenure of state executive committees remains valid until proper congresses are conducted in line with stipulated procedures.
They further contended that any attempt to sideline elected structures undermines internal party democracy and weakens the rule of law within the party.
However, the defendants opposed the suit through preliminary objections, counter-affidavits and written submissions.
Mark and the other defendants argued that the dispute strictly concerned the internal affairs of the party and was therefore not justiciable.
They also maintained that the claimants lacked locus standi to institute the case and that the suit was incompetent.
They further argued that the claimants failed to exhaust internal dispute resolution mechanisms before approaching the court.
