A Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday restrained the Independent National Electoral Commission from recognising or participating in any congress organised by a disputed caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress.
The court, in a judgment delivered by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, also barred former Senate President David Mark and other prominent figures within the party from interfering with the functions and tenure of elected state executives.
The ruling marks the latest twist in the party’s deepening internal leadership crisis, with significant implications for the control of party structures ahead of future political activities.
The case stemmed from an originating summons filed by Norman Obinna and six others on behalf of state chairpersons and executive committees of the party.
The plaintiffs challenged the legality of actions taken by the caretaker or interim national leadership, particularly its decision to organise state congresses through an appointed committee.
They argued that the caretaker body lacked constitutional authority to organise such congresses or appoint any committee for that purpose.
According to the plaintiffs, only duly elected party organs recognised under the ADC constitution possess the authority to conduct congresses.
They therefore asked the court to affirm the tenure of the state executive committees and restrain any parallel processes capable of undermining their authority.
In resolving the matter, Justice Abdulmalik held that the claims brought before the court were valid and deserving of judicial consideration, especially in view of alleged breaches of constitutional and statutory provisions.
She stated that she found “the issue in the originating summons meritorious.”
The judge framed the central issue as whether the second to sixth defendants, including David Mark, had the constitutional or statutory authority to assume the powers of elected state organs of the ADC, whose tenure is guaranteed under the party’s constitution.
She relied on Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution, which mandates political parties to conduct periodic elections based on democratic principles, as well as Article 23 of the ADC Constitution, which provides that national and state officers shall hold office for 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.”
On the defence raised by the defendants that the dispute was an internal party matter outside the court’s jurisdiction, the judge acknowledged the established legal position but clarified its limitations.
She ruled that while courts generally avoid interference in internal party affairs, they are duty-bound to intervene where there is a clear allegation of constitutional or statutory violations.
“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 held.
“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 stressed that political parties must operate strictly within the confines of their constitutions, noting that any deviation from prescribed procedures, particularly in leadership matters, cannot be justified under the guise of internal autonomy.
She found that the procedure adopted by the defendants, including the appointment of the 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 valid and must be allowed to run its full course without interference.
The judge further held that only the elected structures have the authority to organise state congresses, effectively nullifying any process initiated by the caretaker leadership.
In a series of far-reaching orders, the court set aside the appointment of the congress committee and restrained INEC from recognising any congress organised by it.
The court also barred David Mark and the other defendants from organising congresses or conventions outside the provisions of the party’s constitution.
Additionally, they were restrained from taking any steps capable of undermining or disrupting the authority of the state executive committees.
The defendants in the matter include the ADC, David Mark, Patricia Akwashiki, Bolaji Abdullahi, Rauf Aregbesola, Oserheimen Osunbor, and INEC.
The defendants had opposed the suit through preliminary objections, counter-affidavits and written addresses.
They argued that the dispute related strictly to the internal affairs of the party and was therefore not justiciable.
They also contended that the plaintiffs lacked locus standi to institute the action and had failed to exhaust internal dispute resolution mechanisms before approaching the court.
What You Should Know
The judgment represents a major setback for the disputed caretaker leadership within the ADC and could reshape the party’s internal power dynamics ahead of critical political activities.
By affirming the authority of elected state executives and restraining parallel congresses, the court reinforced the principle that political parties must strictly adhere to their constitutions.
The ruling also highlights the judiciary’s willingness to intervene in internal party disputes where constitutional breaches are alleged, potentially setting a precedent for similar political cases across Nigeria as parties intensify preparations for future elections.
