Published by Oravbiere Osayomore Promise.
The Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday delivered a landmark ruling in the protracted leadership crisis of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), restraining the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising or participating in any congress organised by the party’s disputed caretaker leadership. Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, in a judgment on an originating summons filed by state chairpersons and executive committees of the ADC, also barred former Senate President David Mark and other prominent figures in the party from interfering with the functions and tenure of elected state executives, the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports. The case, which was argued by lawyers including Sanusi Musa, SAN, for the plaintiffs and Jibrin Okutepa, SAN, for David Mark, with I. D. Mohammed representing INEC, turned on the question of whether a caretaker body had the constitutional authority to organise state congresses and appoint congress committees.
The plaintiffs, led by Norman Obinna and six others, challenged the legality of actions taken by the ADC’s caretaker or interim national leadership, which they argued lacked the constitutional authority to organise state congresses or to appoint committees for that purpose. According to them, only duly elected party organs recognised under the ADC constitution possess the power to conduct congresses. The plaintiffs therefore asked the court to affirm the tenure of the state executive committees and restrain any parallel processes that could undermine their authority. In her judgment, Justice Abdulmalik held that the claims brought before the court were valid and deserving of judicial consideration, stating that she found "the issue in the originating summons meritorious".
Justice Abdulmalik identified the central issue as whether the defendants, including David Mark, had the constitutional or statutory authority to assume the powers of elected state organs whose tenure was 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 should hold office for a maximum of two terms spanning eight years. The judge framed the question before her as whether there was any infraction committed by Mark and his co-defendants when they convened meetings and appointed a body known as a "congress committee" to organise state congresses.
Addressing the defence that the matter was an internal affair of a political party and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the court, Justice Abdulmalik acknowledged the settled legal position but clarified its limits. While courts are generally reluctant to interfere in internal party matters, she held that they will intervene where there is a clear allegation of violation of constitutional or statutory provisions. "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. The judge 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.
Justice Abdulmalik found that the procedure adopted by the defendants, including the appointment of a "congress committee" to organise state congresses, was not recognised by the ADC constitution and therefore invalid. Consequently, she held that the tenure of the state executive committees remains valid and must be allowed to run its full course without interference. The court further ruled that only those elected structures have the authority to organise state congresses, effectively nullifying any process initiated by the caretaker leadership. In a set of far‑reaching orders, the court also restrained INEC from recognising any such congress or giving effect to any list of candidates that might emerge from a process not conducted by the legitimate state executives.
The judgment is the latest development in a festering leadership dispute that has paralysed the ADC for months, raising concerns about the party’s ability to participate effectively in the 2027 general elections. The rift pits the faction loyal to former Senate President David Mark against the faction of Nafiu Bala Gombe, with both sides claiming legitimacy. The Court of Appeal had earlier ordered all parties to maintain the status quo pending the determination of the substantive matter, a ruling that INEC interpreted as a directive to withdraw recognition from all contending factions. The electoral body subsequently removed the names of David Mark and his interim National Secretary, Rauf Aregbesola, from its official portal.
The ADC has become a major opposition platform, attracting high‑profile figures including former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, former Labour Party presidential candidate Peter Obi, former Kano State Governor Rabiu Kwankwaso, and former APC stalwart Rotimi Amaechi. The party’s leadership vacuum, however, has hindered its ability to conduct primaries, submit membership registers, and prepare for the 2027 polls. In a letter to the Chief Justice of Nigeria on Tuesday, the Mark‑led faction warned that a continued delay in the Supreme Court’s judgment on the leadership dispute could lead to the party’s exclusion from the elections. The Supreme Court heard arguments in the appeal on 22 April 2026 and reserved judgment for a date yet to be communicated.
Justice Abdulmalik’s ruling, which essentially affirms the authority of elected state executives over any caretaker arrangement, is likely to be appealed. For now, it hands a tactical victory to the state chairpersons who have resisted the Mark‑led caretaker committee. INEC, whose role in the crisis has been to maintain neutrality while complying with court orders, is expected to abide by the judgment. With the clock ticking towards the 2027 elections, the ADC’s fate now hinges on the Supreme Court’s pending decision. But for the state executives who challenged the caretaker leadership, Wednesday’s judgment is a vindication: the court has affirmed that their tenure cannot be cut short by a body the party’s constitution does not recognise. The battle for the soul of the ADC is far from over, but for one day, the rule of law has spoken clearly.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters News | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments