The Federal High Court in Abuja has restrained the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising or taking part in any congress organised by a disputed caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
Delivering judgment on Wednesday, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik also barred former Senate President David Mark and other key figures in the party from interfering with the duties and tenure of duly elected state executives.
The ruling marks a significant development in the ongoing leadership dispute within the ADC, with implications for control of party structures ahead of future political activities.
The case stemmed from a suit filed by Norman Obinna and six others representing ADC state chairpersons and executive committees. They challenged the legality of actions taken by an interim national leadership, particularly its move to organise state congresses through an appointed committee.
The plaintiffs argued that the caretaker body lacked the constitutional backing to conduct congresses or appoint any committee for that purpose, insisting that only elected party organs have such authority.
In her ruling, Justice Abdulmalik agreed with the plaintiffs, stating that she found “the issue in the originating summons meritorious”.
She addressed the key question of whether Mark and other defendants had the legal authority to assume the functions of elected state party organs, whose tenure is protected under the party’s constitution.
Citing section 223 of the 1999 Constitution and Article 23 of the ADC constitution, the judge emphasised the requirement for political parties to operate based on democratic principles and within defined tenure limits.
READ ALSO:
- Former Lagos APC Spokesman Seye Oladejo Picks House Of Reps Nomination Form
- Court Blocks INEC From Recognising ADC Congress Activities
- Lagos APC Leaders Rally Behind Hamzat As Consensus Candidate
- Adeola Seeks Iyabo Obasanjo’s Support Ahead Of 2027 Ogun Governorship Race
- Why AMVCA May Not Continue — Mildred Okwo
“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,” she said.
On the argument that the matter was purely an internal party issue, the court acknowledged that while such matters are generally outside judicial interference, exceptions exist.
“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 held that the formation of the so-called congress committee was not recognised under the ADC constitution and therefore invalid.
She ruled that the tenure of the state executive committees remains valid and must not be disrupted, adding that only properly elected structures have the authority to organise congresses.
The court subsequently nullified the congress committee and barred INEC from recognising any congress conducted by it.
It also restrained Mark and other defendants from organising congresses or conventions outside the provisions of the party’s constitution or taking actions that could undermine existing state executives.
The defendants in the case included the ADC, David Mark, Patricia Akwashiki, Malam Bolaji Abdullahi, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, Oserheimen Osunbor, and INEC.
While the plaintiffs insisted that caretaker arrangements undermine internal democracy, the defendants argued that the matter was an internal party issue and challenged the competence of the suit, including the plaintiffs’ legal standing.
However, the court dismissed those objections, affirming its authority to intervene where constitutional breaches are alleged.