The Court of Appeal in Abuja, by a two-to-one majority, has upheld a High Court order barring the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising any state congresses conducted by committees appointed by the Senator David Mark‑led caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
A three‑member panel, in a lead judgment delivered by Justice Okon Abang, dismissed the ADC’s appeal and affirmed the restraining order issued by the Federal High Court on 29 April. Justices Abang and Donatus Okorowo formed the majority, while the panel’s head, Justice Abba Mohammed, dissented.
The appellate court held that responsibility for conducting state congresses rests with elected state executive committees, not with the national leadership. It further upheld the trial court’s order restraining the Mark‑led executives from interfering with the tenure and functions of the party’s duly elected state officers.
In his minority judgment, Justice Mohammed argued that the case bordered on a non‑justiciable internal party affair and that the trial court had wrongly assumed jurisdiction.
Implications for 2027 Elections
The ruling could jeopardise the presidential candidacies of former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and other aspirants who emerged from the national congress organised by the Mark‑led faction, ahead of the 2027 general elections.
The High Court had previously held that the four‑year tenure of the ADC’s State Working Committees and State Executive Committees remains valid and subsisting until properly constituted congresses and a national convention are held. The judgment followed a suit filed by aggrieved members—Don Norman Obinna, Johnny Tovie Derek, Obah C. Ehigiator, Hon. Olona Yinka, Dr. Charles Idowu Omideji, Samuel Pam Gyang, and Obianyo Patrick—suing on behalf of all state chairmen and executive committees.
The defendants included the ADC, Senator David Mark, Senator Patricia Akwashiki, Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, Professor Oserheimen Osunbor (sued on behalf of the caretaker committee), and INEC.
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, who presided over the trial, held that neither the 1999 Constitution nor the ADC’s constitution empowered the caretaker committee to appoint congress committees. She cited Section 223 of the Constitution, which mandates democratic elections within parties, and Article 23 of the ADC Constitution, which limits officers to two terms of eight years. While courts are generally reluctant to interfere in party affairs, she ruled that intervention is warranted where constitutional or statutory provisions are breached.
The trial court dismissed the defendants’ preliminary objections, affirming that the subject matter fell within the Federal High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 251 of the Constitution and that the plaintiffs had the requisite locus standi.
Judicial Intervention to Prevent Anarchy
In the lead majority judgment, Justice Abang emphasised that the court had a duty to intervene “to prevent anarchy and ensure the survival of democracy in Nigeria.” Citing a recent Supreme Court decision on the PDP leadership crisis, he held that the ADC case could not be classified as a mere internal affair. “Once a complaint is anchored on a constitutional infraction, the shield of internal affairs drops and the veil is lifted for judicial intervention,” he added.
Consequently, the panel dismissed the appeal marked CA/ABJ/CV/608/2026, declaring that congresses and the national convention conducted by the Mark‑led ADC were nullities, having been held in disobedience of a subsisting court order. The court awarded costs of N10 million against the party.
Immediately after the judgment, the ADC’s National Welfare Secretary, Mr. Nkem Ukandu, indicated that the party would appeal to the Supreme Court.
