The Court of Appeal in Abuja on Monday upheld an order restraining the Independent National Electoral Commission from recognizing or participating in congresses conducted by committees appointed by the Senator David Mark-led caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress.
The judgment has thrown fresh uncertainty into the opposition party’s internal affairs ahead of the 2027 general election, with former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and the ADC insisting that the ruling does not affect candidates who emerged from its direct primaries.
In a split decision, the appellate court affirmed the April 29 judgment of the Federal High Court, Abuja, which barred the caretaker leadership from interfering with the tenure and functions of the party’s elected state executive committees.
The majority judgment, delivered by Justice Okon Abang and supported by Justice Donatus Okorowo, held that the authority to conduct state congresses rested with elected state executive committees and not the caretaker national leadership.
However, the ADC rejected the ruling, saying it would appeal the decision at the Supreme Court while maintaining that its direct primaries and candidates for the 2027 elections remained valid.
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Abang held that there was no basis to set aside the lower court’s decision, stressing that the authority to conduct state congresses rests with elected state executive committees and not a caretaker national leadership.
Justice Donatus Okorowo concurred with the lead judgment, while the presiding justice of the panel, Justice Abba Mohammed, dissented.
Justice Mohammed held that the dispute bordered on the internal affairs of a political party and was therefore non-justiciable, adding that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
The majority, however, held that the matter involved constitutional questions warranting judicial intervention.
Justice Abang held that once a complaint is founded on alleged constitutional infractions, the defense that the matter is an internal party affair no longer applies.
He said, “Once a complaint before the court is anchored on a constitutional infraction, the shield of internal affairs drops and the veil is lifted for judicial intervention.”
Sponsored
The appellate court added that intervention was necessary to “prevent anarchy and ensure the survival of democracy in Nigeria.”
Relying on a recent Supreme Court judgment arising from the leadership crisis in the Peoples Democratic Party, the court held that the ADC dispute could not be classified as a mere domestic affair of a political party.
It also ruled that the congresses and national convention conducted by the Mark-led caretaker committee were nullities, having been held in defiance of a subsisting order issued by the Federal High Court on April 14.
The court consequently awarded N10m costs against the ADC.
In his dissenting judgment, however, Justice Mohammed disagreed with the decision that the trial court had jurisdiction to hear the case.
He upheld the appellants’ challenge to the jurisdiction of the trial court, noting that the court had no business interfering in political decisions.
He further added that the function of the state executive committees was only to prepare the agenda for the state congresses, rather than conduct the congresses, adding that the action of the 1st to 7th respondents was immature.
The judgment arose from suit FHC/ABJ/CS/581/2026, instituted by Don Norman Obinna, Johnny Tovie Derek, Obah C. Ehigiator, Olona Yinka, Dr. Charles Idowu Omideji, Samuel Pam Gyang, and Obianyo Patrick on behalf of themselves and all ADC state chairmen and state executive committees.
The plaintiffs challenged the decision of the caretaker committee to appoint committees to conduct state congresses, arguing that the move violated both the party’s constitution and the 1999 Constitution.
They maintained that only duly elected party organs have the constitutional authority to organize state congresses.
SPONSORED