The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, on Wednesday, barred the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising or participating in any congress organised by committees appointed by the Senator David Mark-led caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
The court, in the judgment that was delivered by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, also restrained the Senator Mark-led group from interfering with the tenure and functions of elected state executives of the party.
It held that the responsibility for conducting state congresses rests with state executive committees and not the national leadership of a political party.
According to the court, 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, which was lodged before the court by aggrieved members of the ADC.
Those behind the suit are Don Norman Obinna, Johnny Tovie Derek, Obah C. Ehigiator, Hon. Olona Yinka, Dr Charles Idowu Omideji, Samuel Pam Gyang, and Obianyo Patrick, who told the court that they sued for themselves and on behalf of all State Chairmen and State Executive Committees of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
Listed as defendants in the matter are the ADC, Sen. David Mark, Sen. Patricia Akwashiki, Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, Prof. Oserheimen Osunbor (sued on behalf of the Caretaker/Interim National Working Committee) and INEC.
The plaintiffs had, among other things, challenged the decision of the Senator Mark-led leadership of the ADC to constitute a congress committee for the purpose of conducting state congresses.
They challenged the validity of any appointments made by the Mark-led caretaker committee and argued that the planned state congress slated for April 2026, if conducted under the supervision of the said caretaker committee, would constitute a gross violation of the party’s constitution.
It was the position of the plaintiffs that only duly elected party organs recognised under the party’s constitution possess the power to conduct congresses.
While agreeing with the plaintiffs, Justice Abdulmalik held that neither the 1999 Constitution, as amended, nor the Constitution of the ADC empowered the caretaker/interim National Working Committee led by David Mark to appoint committees for the purpose of conducting state congresses.
The court held that claims brought before it by the plaintiffs were valid and deserving of judicial consideration, citing an alleged breach of constitutional and statutory provisions.
It held that section 223 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, mandates political parties to conduct periodic elections based on democratic principles, adding that Article 23 of the ADC Constitution also provides that national and state officers shall hold office for a maximum of two terms spanning eight years.
Justice Abdulmalik stressed that although courts are generally reluctant to interfere in the domestic affairs of political parties, they do intervene where there is a clear allegation of violation of constitutional or statutory provisions.
“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.
“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,” the trial judge ruled.
She held that evidence before the court established that the tenure of the state executive committees of the ADC remained valid and must be allowed to run its full course without interference.
The court held that only those elected structures have the authority to organise state congresses and accordingly nullified any process initiated by the Senator Mark-led caretaker leadership.
