By Ademu Idakwo, James Kwen and Olakunle Olasanmi, Abuja
The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has said it will challenge Monday’s Court of Appeal judgment on its ward, local government and state congresses at the Supreme Court, insisting that the verdict does not affect the validity of the direct primaries through which its candidates for the 2027 general elections emerged.
The party maintained that the appellate court judgment relates only to its ward, local government and state congresses and has no bearing on the direct primaries that produced its candidates for the forthcoming general elections.
In a statement issued on Monday by its National Publicity Secretary, Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi, shortly after the judgment, the ADC assured members and supporters that the verdict had no effect on the direct primaries through which its candidates emerged.
He said: “The African Democratic Congress (ADC) notes the judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal in Abuja on Monday in a matter relating to party congresses for the election of ward, local government and state executive committees of the party.
“We wish to assure members of the party and the general public that this judgment has no effect whatsoever on the direct primaries through which the party’s candidates have emerged at all levels.”
The party stated that it had commenced proceedings to challenge the judgment at the Supreme Court, insisting that it disagreed with the decision and considered it legally unsustainable.
According to Abdullahi, the dissenting judgment delivered by the presiding Justice more accurately reflected the settled position of the law and the party’s position on the matter.
“We also note the dissenting judgment of the presiding Justice, which, in our view, more accurately reflects the settled position of the law and the party’s position,” Abdullahi added.
The opposition party urged its members and supporters nationwide to remain calm and focused, assuring them that the legal process would be pursued to its logical conclusion.
It reaffirmed its commitment to providing Nigerians with what it described as a credible political alternative, stressing that it would continue to pursue its mission in line with the Constitution and the rule of law.
Also reacting to the judgment, the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC), through its National Publicity Secretary, Osa Director, alleged that the All Progressives Congress (APC)-led Federal Government was working to weaken opposition political parties and appealed to the judiciary not to allow itself to be used to undermine Nigeria’s democracy.
Osa said: “It is obvious that the APC government is more interested in a one-party state. They are doing everything possible to ensure that the opposition parties are dismantled. We are pleading with the judiciary not to allow it to be used to scuttle our hard-earned democracy.”
Earlier on Monday, the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of the Federal High Court 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 ADC.
In the lead judgment, Justice Okon Abang held that there was no basis to set aside the restraining order earlier issued by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court, Abuja, on 29 April.
Justice Abdulmalik had restrained the Mark-led executives from interfering with the tenure and functions of the party’s elected state executive committees.
The appellate court agreed that responsibility for organising and conducting state congresses of political parties rests with duly elected state executive committees and not the national leadership.
While Justices Okon 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 Abang held that the appellant breached Section 223(1)(a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria through non-compliance with the party’s Constitution in the conduct of its affairs, thereby conferring jurisdiction on the trial court to entertain the suit.
The majority judgment also rejected the appellant’s argument that the dispute was purely an internal affair of the party.
