The Federal High Court in Abuja has barred INEC from recognising any congress organised by a disputed caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress, dealing a major blow to former Senate President David Mark and other party chieftains.
In a judgment delivered by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, the court also restrained Mark and prominent figures such as Rauf Aregbesola, Bolaji Abdullahi, Patricia Akwashiki, and Oserheimen Osunbor from interfering with elected state executives.
The ruling deepens the leadership crisis within the ADC, with significant implications for control of party structures ahead of future political contests.
The case was filed by Norman Obinna and six others, acting on behalf of state chairpersons and executive committees. They challenged the legality of a caretaker leadership’s move to organise state congresses through an appointed committee, arguing that only duly elected party organs possessed such authority under the ADC constitution.
Justice Abdulmalik held that the claimants’ case had merit. She framed the central issue as whether the defendants had constitutional authority to assume the powers of elected state executives, whose tenure is protected under the party’s rules.
Citing Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution and Article 23 of the ADC constitution—which limits officers to two four-year terms—the judge ruled that the appointment of a “congress committee” was not recognised by the party’s governing documents and was therefore invalid.
Dismissing the defendants’ argument that the dispute was an internal party matter outside the court’s jurisdiction, she stated: “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.”
Consequently, the court set aside the appointment of the congress committee, restrained INEC from recognising any congress organised by it, and barred the defendants from organising any congress or convention outside the party’s constitution. The tenure of the state executive committees remains valid and must run its full course.
The Punch reports that the plaintiffs had sued in a representative capacity for ADC state chairmen nationwide, insisting that bypassing elected structures undermined internal party democracy. The defendants, including the ADC and INEC, had argued lack of jurisdiction and locus standi, and contended that internal dispute mechanisms were not exhausted—submissions the court rejected.
