The Federal High Court in Abuja has issued an order preventing the Independent National Electoral Commission from recognising or taking part in any congress organised by a disputed caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress.
In a judgment delivered on Wednesday, April 29, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik also restrained former Senate President, David Mark, alongside other senior figures in the party, from interfering with the duties and tenure of elected state executives.
The ruling follows a suit filed by Norman Obinna and six others, acting on behalf of ADC state chairpersons and executive committees nationwide.
The plaintiffs challenged the legality of actions taken by an interim leadership, particularly its decision to constitute a committee to conduct state congresses.
They argued that the caretaker body lacked the constitutional backing to organise congresses or appoint any such committee, maintaining that only properly elected party organs have the authority to carry out those functions under the ADC constitution.
They further asked the court to protect the tenure of the state executives and stop any parallel arrangements that could weaken their authority.
In her decision, Justice Abdulmalik agreed that the issues raised were valid and required judicial intervention, especially given the alleged breach of constitutional provisions.
She noted that she found “the issue in the originating summons meritorious”.
The judge examined whether the defendants, including Mark, had any legal basis to assume the responsibilities of elected state structures whose tenure is guaranteed by the party’s constitution.
Relying on section 223 of the 1999 Constitution, which mandates internal democracy in political parties, and Article 23 of the ADC constitution, which outlines tenure limits, she questioned the legitimacy of the actions taken by the defendants.
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.”
READ ALSO: Mark-Led ADC Writes CJN, Urges Supreme Court To Fast-Track Judgement
On the argument that the matter was purely internal, the court clarified that such disputes fall within its jurisdiction when constitutional breaches are alleged.
“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.
The court held that the process adopted by the defendants, including setting up a “congress committee,” was not recognised by the ADC constitution and was therefore invalid.
It affirmed that the tenure of the state executive committees remains valid and must not be disrupted.
Justice Abdulmalik further ruled that only duly elected party structures can organise state congresses, effectively nullifying any parallel arrangements introduced by the caretaker leadership.
As part of its orders, the court set aside the congress committee and barred INEC from recognising any congress conducted under it.
The court also stopped Mark and the other defendants from organising congresses or conventions outside constitutional provisions or taking any steps that could undermine the authority of the state executives.
The plaintiffs had argued that caretaker arrangements violate both the ADC constitution and the 1999 Constitution, warning that such actions threaten internal democracy within the party.
However, the defendants opposed the suit, insisting it was an internal party matter beyond the court’s jurisdiction.
They also contended that the plaintiffs lacked the legal standing to institute the case and failed to exhaust internal dispute resolution mechanisms before approaching the court.