In a split decision of two-to-one, the Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja on Monday affirmed the judgment restraining the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising or participating in any state congresses organised by committees appointed by the Senator David Mark-led caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
A three-member panel of the appellate court, in a lead judgment delivered by Justice Okon Abang, held that there was no reason to set aside the restraining order issued by the Federal High Court in Abuja against the Mark-led ADC on April 29.
The appellate court also upheld the order of trial Justice Joyce Abdulmalik restraining the Mark-led executives from interfering with the tenure and functions of the party’s elected state executives.
The court held that the responsibility for conducting state congresses of political parties rests with elected state executive committees and not with the national leadership.
While Justices Abang and Donatus Okorowo delivered the majority judgment barring INEC from recognising the outcome of congresses conducted by the Mark-led leadership of the ADC, the presiding Justice of the panel, Justice Abba Mohammed, delivered a dissenting judgment.
Justice Mohammed held that the suit arose from the internal affairs of a political party, which he described as non-justiciable. He ruled that the trial court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
The Court of Appeal judgment may also affect the presidential ambitions of former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and other candidates who emerged from the national congress organised by the Mark-led faction of the ADC ahead of the 2027 general elections.
It would be recalled that the Federal High Court had earlier ruled that the four-year tenure of the ADC’s State Working Committees and State Executive Committees remained valid and subsisting pending the conduct of properly constituted congresses and the convocation of a national convention.
The judgment followed a suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/581/2026 filed by aggrieved members of the ADC.
The plaintiffs are Don Norman Obinna, Johnny Tovie Derek, Obah C. Ehigiator, Hon. Olona Yinka, Dr. Charles Idowu Omideji, Samuel Pam Gyang and Obianyo Patrick, who instituted the suit for themselves and on behalf of all State Chairmen and State Executive Committees of the African Democratic Congress.
The defendants are the ADC, Senator David Mark, Senator Patricia Akwashiki, Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, Prof. Oserheimen Osunbor, who was sued on behalf of the Caretaker/Interim National Working Committee, and INEC.
The plaintiffs challenged the decision of the Senator Mark-led leadership of the ADC to constitute committees to conduct state congresses.
They argued that the appointments made by the caretaker committee violated the party’s constitution and maintained that the planned state congresses scheduled for April 2026 would amount to a gross breach of the party’s constitution.
The plaintiffs further maintained that only duly elected party organs recognised by the ADC constitution possess the authority to conduct congresses.
In her judgment, Justice Abdulmalik agreed with the plaintiffs and held that neither the 1999 Constitution, as amended, nor the ADC Constitution empowered the caretaker or interim National Working Committee led by Senator Mark to appoint committees to conduct state congresses.
She ruled that the plaintiffs’ claims disclosed constitutional and statutory breaches and were therefore valid for judicial determination.
The trial judge further held that Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution mandates political parties to conduct periodic elections based on democratic principles, while Article 23 of the ADC Constitution provides that national and state officers shall hold office for a maximum of two terms spanning eight years.
Justice Abdulmalik also held that although courts generally refrain from interfering in the internal affairs of political parties, they are empowered to intervene where constitutional or statutory violations are established.
She found that the evidence before the court showed that the tenure of the ADC state executive committees remained valid and should run its full course without interference.
The court consequently held that only the elected state structures possess the authority to conduct state congresses and nullified every process initiated by the Senator Mark-led caretaker leadership.
Earlier, the court dismissed a preliminary objection filed by the defendants challenging the competence of the suit and the jurisdiction of the court.
It ruled that the subject matter involved the affairs of INEC and therefore fell within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court under Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.
The court also rejected the defendants’ argument that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust the party’s internal dispute resolution mechanisms before approaching the court, holding that they had the requisite legal standing to institute the action.
In affirming the restraining order, the Court of Appeal held that judicial intervention was necessary to prevent anarchy and safeguard Nigeria’s democracy.
The appellate court relied on a recent Supreme Court judgment on the leadership crisis in the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and held that the ADC dispute could not be regarded as a mere internal affair because it involved alleged constitutional infractions.
The court dismissed Appeal No. CA/ABJ/CV/608/2026 filed by the ADC seeking to set aside the judgment of the Federal High Court.
It further held that the congresses and national convention conducted by the Mark-led ADC were null and void because they were conducted in violation of a subsisting order issued by the Federal High Court on April 14.
The appellate court also awarded a cost of N10 million against the ADC.
Following the judgment, the ADC, represented by its National Welfare Secretary, Nkem Ukandu, announced that it would challenge the decision at the Supreme Court.
(Vanguard)
