A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja on Wednesday restrained the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising or participating in any congress organised by the leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
In a judgment delivered by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, the court 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 case arose from an originating summons filed by Norman Obinna and six others on behalf of ADC state chairpersons and executive committees nationwide.
The ruling marks a significant development in the party’s ongoing leadership crisis, with implications for control of its structures ahead of future political activities.
The plaintiffs challenged the legality of actions taken by a caretaker or interim national leadership, particularly the move to organise state congresses through an appointed committee. They argued that the caretaker body lacked constitutional authority to conduct such congresses or appoint any committee for that purpose.
According to them, only duly elected organs recognised under the party’s constitution have the power to organise congresses. They therefore urged the court to affirm the tenure of state executive committees and restrain any parallel processes that could undermine their authority.
The defendants in the suit included the ADC, David Mark, Patricia Akwashiki, Bolaji Abdullahi, Rauf Aregbesola, Oserheimen Osunbor, and INEC.
In response, the defendants filed preliminary objections, counter-affidavits and written addresses, arguing that the dispute concerned internal party affairs and was therefore not justiciable. They also contended that the plaintiffs lacked locus standi and failed to exhaust internal dispute resolution mechanisms.
Ruling on the matter, Justice Abdulmalik held that the claims were valid and warranted judicial determination, particularly in light of alleged breaches of constitutional and statutory provisions.
She stated that she found “the issue in the originating summons meritorious,” framing the central question as whether the defendants had the legal authority to assume the powers of elected state organs of the party.
Relying on Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and Article 23 of the ADC Constitution, the judge noted that party officials must emerge through democratic processes and serve constitutionally defined tenures.
“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 internal, the court clarified the limits of judicial restraint.
“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,” the judge 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 emphasised that political parties must operate strictly within their constitutions, warning that deviations—particularly in leadership processes—cannot be justified under claims of internal autonomy.
She held that the procedure adopted by the defendants, including the appointment of a “congress committee,” was not recognised by the ADC constitution and was therefore invalid.
Consequently, the court affirmed that the tenure of the state executive committees remains valid and must run its full course without interference. It further ruled that only duly elected structures have the authority to organise state congresses.
In its orders, the court set aside the appointment of the congress committee and restrained INEC from recognising any congress conducted under it.
The court also barred Mark and the other defendants from organising congresses or conventions outside the provisions of the party’s constitution, and from taking any steps capable of undermining the authority of the state executive committees.
