Fresh turmoil has engulfed the African Democratic Congress (ADC) following a Federal High Court judgment restraining the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising or participating in state congresses organised by committees set up by the party’s caretaker leadership.
Delivering judgment in Abuja on Wednesday, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik ruled that the authority to conduct state congresses resides exclusively with the party’s state executive committees, not the national leadership.
The court further affirmed that the four-year tenure of the ADC’s State Working Committees and State Executive Committees remains valid and subsisting, pending the conduct of duly constituted congresses and the convening of a national convention.
In a decision that underscores deepening divisions within the party, the court held that neither the Constitution of Nigeria nor the ADC constitution empowers the caretaker/interim National Working Committee, led by David Mark, to appoint committees to conduct state congresses.
The suit (FHC/ABJ/CS/581/2026) was instituted by Don Norman Obinna, Johnny Tovie Derek, Obah C. Ehigiator, Hon. Olona Yinka, Dr. Charles Idowu Omideji, Samuel Pam Gyang, and Obianyo Patrick, on behalf of ADC state chairmen and executive committees nationwide.
Joined as defendants are the ADC, Mark, Patricia Akwashiki, Bolaji Abdullahi, Rauf Aregbesola, Prof. Oserheimen Osunbor, and INEC.
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.
The judge further ruled that only those elected structures have the authority to organise state congresses, effectively nullifying any process initiated by the caretaker leadership.
The plaintiffs had challenged the legality of the caretaker committee’s decision to constitute a congress committee for the April 2026 state congresses, arguing that such moves violate the party’s constitution.
Justice Abdulmalik’s ruling effectively halts the planned congresses under the Mark-led leadership, further compounding internal wrangling within the ADC and casting uncertainty over the party’s organisational cohesion ahead of future political activities.
