The Federal High Court in Abuja has restrained the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising or participating in any congress organised by a disputed caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
In a judgment delivered by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, the court also barred former Senate President, David Mark, and other party figures from interfering with the tenure and functions of elected state executives.
The case was brought by Norman Obinna and six others representing ADC state chairpersons and executive committees nationwide. 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 have such authority under the party’s constitution.
In her ruling, the judge held that the claims were valid and that the matter warranted judicial intervention due to alleged violations of constitutional and statutory provisions. She cited the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended), particularly provisions requiring political parties to operate democratically, alongside the ADC’s internal constitution governing tenure and procedures.
Justice Abdulmalik emphasised that while courts generally avoid interfering in internal party affairs, they will act where constitutional breaches are alleged. She ruled that the caretaker leadership lacked the authority to appoint a “congress committee” or organise state congresses, declaring such actions invalid.
The court affirmed that the tenure of state executive committees remains valid and must run its full course. It further ruled that only properly elected party structures can organise congresses.
Consequently, the court set aside the appointment of the congress committee and restrained INEC from recognising any congress conducted under it. David Mark and other defendants were also barred from organising parallel congresses or taking steps that could undermine the authority of elected state executives.
The defendants had argued that the matter was an internal party issue and not justiciable, while also questioning the plaintiffs’ legal standing. However, the court rejected these objections, reinforcing that adherence to constitutional provisions within political parties is subject to judicial oversight when violated.
