A 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 on Wednesday, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik also barred former Senate President, David Mark, and other party figures from interfering with the functions and tenure of elected state executives.
The ruling marks a significant twist in the protracted leadership crisis within the ADC, with implications for control of party structures ahead of future political activities.
The suit was instituted by Norman Obinna and six others, who approached the court on behalf of ADC state chairpersons and executive committees nationwide. They challenged the legality of actions taken by an interim national leadership, particularly the move to organise state congresses through an appointed committee.
The plaintiffs argued that the caretaker body lacked constitutional authority to conduct congresses or set up committees for that purpose, insisting that only duly elected organs recognised under the party’s constitution could carry out such functions.
They urged the court to affirm the tenure of the existing state executives and restrain any parallel arrangements capable of undermining their authority.
In her ruling, Justice Abdulmalik held that the case was meritorious and raised valid constitutional questions. She said the central issue was whether the defendants had the legal backing to assume the powers of elected party organs whose tenure is guaranteed under the party’s constitution.
Relying on provisions of the 1999 Constitution and the ADC constitution, the judge emphasised that political parties must operate within democratic principles and adhere strictly to their internal rules, particularly regarding leadership and tenure.
On the argument that the matter was purely an internal party affair beyond the court’s jurisdiction, the judge acknowledged that courts generally avoid interfering in such disputes but noted that exceptions exist.
She ruled that where there is a clear allegation of violation of constitutional or statutory provisions, the court has a duty to intervene.
Justice Abdulmalik further held that the process adopted by the defendants, including the appointment of a congress committee, was not recognised by the ADC constitution and was therefore invalid.
Consequently, the court affirmed that the tenure of the state executive committees remains valid and must run its full course without interference. It also ruled that only elected party structures have the authority to organise state congresses.
The court set aside the appointment of the congress committee and restrained INEC from recognising any congress conducted by it. It also barred the defendants from organising congresses or conventions outside the provisions of the party’s constitution or taking steps capable of undermining the authority of the state executives.
While the defendants had opposed the suit, arguing that it was an internal matter and that the plaintiffs lacked the legal standing to institute the case, the court dismissed those objections.
🚨BREAKING: Watch The Video Clip Here ➤
