The Court of Appeal in Abuja has upheld the judgment restraining the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising or participating in any state congresses conducted by committees appointed by the caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) headed by former Senate President David Mark.
In a split decision of two to one, the three-member appellate panel affirmed the earlier ruling of the Federal High Court in Abuja, which barred the Mark-led caretaker committee from organising the party’s state congresses.
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Okon Abang held that there was no basis to overturn the April 29 decision of the Federal High Court delivered by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik. The appellate court also sustained the order restraining the caretaker leadership from interfering with the tenure and responsibilities of the party’s duly elected state executives.
The court ruled that under the law, the responsibility for conducting state congresses rests with elected state executive committees and not the party’s national leadership.
Justices Okon Abang and Donatus Okorowo formed the majority, while the presiding Justice, Abba Mohammed, dissented.
In his minority judgment, Justice Mohammed maintained that the dispute was an internal affair of the political party and therefore not justiciable. He held that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
The Federal High Court had earlier declared that the four-year tenure of the ADC’s State Working Committees and State Executive Committees remained valid until properly constituted congresses and a national convention are held.
The judgment arose from a suit filed by aggrieved members of the party, including Don Norman Obinna, Johnny Tovie Derek, Obah C. Ehigiator, Olona Yinka, Charles Idowu Omideji, Samuel Pam Gyang and Obianyo Patrick, who instituted the action on behalf of themselves and all ADC state chairmen and executive committees.
The defendants in the suit included the ADC, David Mark, Patricia Akwashiki, Bolaji Abdullahi, Rauf Aregbesola, Oserheimen Osunbor, who were sued on behalf of the Caretaker/Interim National Working Committee, as well as INEC.
The plaintiffs challenged the decision of the Mark-led caretaker committee to appoint committees to conduct state congresses, arguing that such appointments violated the party’s constitution.
They contended that only duly elected party organs recognised by the ADC constitution possess the authority to organise state congresses and that the proposed congresses scheduled for April 2026 would amount to a breach of the party’s constitutional provisions.
In her judgment, Justice Abdulmalik agreed with the plaintiffs, holding that neither the 1999 Constitution, as amended, nor the ADC Constitution empowered the caretaker or interim National Working Committee led by Senator Mark to appoint committees for the conduct of state congresses.
She ruled that the claims raised constitutional and statutory issues deserving of judicial determination, noting that Section 223 of the Constitution requires political parties to conduct periodic elections in line with democratic principles, while Article 23 of the ADC Constitution limits national and state officers to a maximum of two terms spanning eight years.
Justice Abdulmalik further stated that although courts generally avoid interfering in the internal affairs of political parties, judicial intervention becomes necessary where constitutional or statutory violations are alleged.
According to her, the evidence before the court established that the tenure of the ADC’s elected state executive committees remained valid and should not be disrupted. She consequently declared that only those elected structures were authorised to conduct state congresses and nullified every process initiated by the Mark-led caretaker leadership.
The trial court also dismissed the defendants’ preliminary objection challenging its jurisdiction and the competence of the suit. It held that because the dispute involved INEC, it fell within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court under Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution.
The court equally rejected the argument that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust the party’s internal dispute resolution mechanisms, ruling that they had the necessary legal standing to institute the action.
Affirming the decision, the Court of Appeal said it had a responsibility to intervene to “prevent anarchy and ensure the survival of democracy in Nigeria.”
Justice Abang, in the majority judgment, relied on a recent Supreme Court decision involving the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), stating, “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.”
The appellate court subsequently dismissed the appeal marked CA/ABJ/CV/608/2026, filed by the ADC, and held that the congresses and national convention conducted by the Mark-led caretaker leadership were null and void because they were carried out in defiance of a subsisting Federal High Court order issued on April 14.
The court also awarded N10 million in costs against the ADC.
Post Views: 5