A Federal High Court in Abuja has directed the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) not to recognize or attend any congress organised by a caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress, African Democratic Congress (ADC) in the states.
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik on Wednesday ruled that the four-year tenure of the ADC’s state working committees and state executive committees remains valid and subsisting, pending the conduct of properly constituted congresses and the convocation of a national convention.
The court, in in its judgment delivered 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 ruling is the latest in the festering leadership dispute within the ADC, with clear implications for the control of party structures ahead of the forthcoming 2027 general elections.
The case arose 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 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 organise such congresses or to appoint any committee for that purpose.
According to them, only duly elected party organs recognised under the party’s 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 resolving the dispute, 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.
READ ALSO: Cubana Chiefpriest signals interest in House of Reps under APC after ‘City Boys’ alignment
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 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 matter was an internal affair of a political party and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the court, the judge acknowledged the settled legal position but clarified its limits.
She held that while courts are generally reluctant to interfere in internal party matters, 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.
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 a “congress committee,” was not recognised by the ADC constitution and therefore invalid.
Consequently, the court held that the tenure of the state executive committees remains valid and must be allowed to run its full course without interference.