The Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday restrained 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 ruling that deepens the party’s internal power struggle.
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, in a judgment, also barred former Senate President, David Mark, and other senior figures in the party from interfering with the functions and tenure of duly elected state executive committees.
The decision is the latest escalation in the ADC leadership crisis, which has continued to generate tension over control of party structures ahead of future political activities.
The case was instituted by Norman Obinna and six others, who filed the suit on behalf of state chairpersons and executive committees of the party nationwide.
The plaintiffs challenged the legality of actions taken by a caretaker or interim national leadership, which had moved to organise state congresses through an appointed committee. They argued that the arrangement was unconstitutional and lacked any legal foundation under the ADC constitution.
According to them, only properly elected party organs are empowered to organise congresses, insisting that the caretaker leadership had exceeded its authority.
They urged the court to protect the tenure of existing state executives and halt any parallel congress processes capable of undermining their positions.
Delivering judgment, Justice Abdulmalik held that the issues raised were valid and merited judicial intervention, especially in light of alleged breaches of both constitutional and party provisions.
She framed the central question as whether the defendants, including David Mark and others, had any lawful authority to assume the powers of elected state organs whose tenure is constitutionally guaranteed under the party’s internal rules.
Relying on Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution and Article 23 of the ADC Constitution, the judge noted that political parties are required to operate on democratic principles and respect fixed tenures for elected officials.
She further questioned the legality of the appointment of a “congress committee” by the caretaker leadership, describing it as inconsistent with the party’s constitution.
While acknowledging the general principle that courts avoid interference in internal party affairs, Justice Abdulmalik stressed that such restraint does not apply where there are clear allegations of constitutional or statutory breaches.
She ruled that once a party alleges violation of its constitution, the court is obligated to intervene.
“The argument that this court lacks jurisdiction cannot stand where constitutional breaches are alleged,” she held.
The court consequently set aside the appointment of the congress committee and restrained INEC from recognising any congress conducted under its authority.
It also barred David Mark and other defendants from organising or supervising any congress or convention outside the framework of the party’s constitution.
In addition, the court held that the tenure of the existing state executive committees remains valid and must not be truncated through parallel arrangements.
The ruling effectively affirmed that only elected structures within the party have the authority to organise state congresses.
The plaintiffs had argued that the caretaker arrangement violated both the ADC constitution and Section 223 of the Nigerian Constitution, which mandates internal democracy in political parties.
The defendants, however, had urged the court to dismiss the case, arguing that it was an internal party matter and therefore not justiciable. They also challenged the plaintiffs’ standing and claimed failure to exhaust internal dispute resolution mechanisms.
The court dismissed the objections, holding that constitutional compliance cannot be shielded under the guise of internal party autonomy.
