*Challenge Legality Of Interim Leadership And Congresses
The Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered all parties in a new suit over the leadership crisis rocking the African Democratic Congress to maintain the status quo pending the determination of the case adding yet another judicial front to a crisis that now spans the Supreme Court, multiple Federal High Court judges, state high courts, and competing factions, each wielding court orders against the other.
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik issued the directive on Tuesday after counsel to one of the defendants sought an adjournment to respond to the plaintiffs’ filings. The judge cautioned against any action that could render the proceedings nugatory and adjourned the matter to April 23 for definite hearing.
The suit was filed by Norman Obinna and six others on behalf of ADC state chairmen and their executive committees — introducing a new category of litigants into the ADC crisis: the elected state-level party executives who argue that the caretaker or interim National Working Committee led by David Mark lacks constitutional authority to act in place of their duly elected structures.
The suit was instituted by Norman Obinna and six other individuals representing ADC state chairmen and their state executive committees across multiple states.
These are elected party officials at the state level who claim their tenure remains valid under the party’s constitution and the 1999 Constitution (as amended), and who are challenging what they describe as an attempt by the interim national leadership to sideline them through unconstitutional means.
The defendants include the ADC as first defendant, Senator David Mark, Patricia Akwashiki, Bolaji Abdullahi (the party’s National Publicity Secretary), Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, Oserheimen Osunbor, and the Independent National Electoral Commission.
The inclusion of INEC as a defendant reflects the plaintiffs’ concern that the electoral commission might recognise or participate in exercises organised by the interim leadership a recognition they argue would be unlawful given their challenge to the caretaker committee’s authority.
The plaintiffs’ case rests on several key arguments and prayers.
They argue that the caretaker committee lacks constitutional authority to organise state congresses or appoint congress committees functions that, under the party’s constitution, can only be performed by properly constituted party organs following prescribed procedures.
They insist that their tenure as duly elected state executives remains valid until valid congresses are conducted in accordance with the party’s constitution meaning the interim national leadership cannot simply declare their positions vacant or appoint replacements without following due process.
They are seeking court declarations affirming that only properly constituted state executive committees can conduct congresses within their respective states.
They are urging the court to restrain INEC from recognising or participating in any exercise including congresses, conventions, or primaries organised by the interim leadership.
Justice Abdulmalik’s ruling was measured but firm. She directed all parties to file their processes and ordered that all pending applications would be taken together with the substantive suit a procedural approach designed to ensure comprehensive consideration of all issues at once rather than piecemeal adjudication.
Justice Abdulmalik’s ruling was measured but firm. She directed all parties to file their processes and ordered that all pending applications would be taken together with the substantive suit a procedural approach designed to ensure comprehensive consideration of all issues at once rather than piecemeal adjudication.
The judge ordered that hearing notices be served on all relevant parties ahead of the next sitting, ensuring that every defendant has formal notice of the proceedings and the opportunity to participate.
Most significantly, she directed all parties to maintain the status quo pending the determination of the case — meaning neither the interim national leadership nor the state executives should take actions that alter the current position, including conducting congresses, dissolving state executives, or appointing new officials.
The caution against any action that could render the proceedings nugatory carries an implicit warning: if any party proceeds with activities that the court is being asked to rule upon, they do so at the risk of those activities being subsequently nullified.
The state chairmen’s suit introduces a dimension that has not been central to the previous ADC litigation — the relationship between the national and state levels of the party.
The earlier suits filed by Nafiu Bala Gombe and Leke Abejide focused primarily on the legitimacy of Mark’s emergence as national chairman and whether the process through which he assumed leadership complied with the party’s constitution and the Electoral Act.