Court Halts INEC Recognition of ADC Congresses Linked to Mark-led Caretaker Committee

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday barred 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).

Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, in her judgment, also restrained the leadership of the party led by David Mark from interfering with the functions and tenure of elected state executives.
The judge ruled that the responsibility for conducting state congresses lies with the party’s state executive committees and not the national executive committee. She further held that the four-year tenure of the ADC’s State Working Committees and State Executive Committees remains valid and subsisting pending the conduct of properly constituted congresses and a national convention.
Justice Abdulmalik also declared that neither the Constitution of Nigeria nor that of the ADC empowers the party’s Caretaker/Interim National Working Committee, led by Mark, to appoint any congress committee for the purpose of conducting state congresses.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the suit was filed by aggrieved ADC state chairmen challenging the actions of the David Mark-led faction.
In the originating summons filed by Norman Obinna and six others on behalf of ADC state chairpersons and executive committees, the plaintiffs questioned the legality of actions taken by the caretaker or interim national leadership.
They argued that the caretaker body lacked constitutional authority to organise state congresses or appoint committees for that purpose and urged the court to affirm their tenure while halting any parallel processes.
In her ruling, Justice Abdulmalik described the issues raised in the suit as meritorious. She identified the key question as whether the defendants, including Mark, had constitutional or statutory authority to assume the powers of elected state organs whose tenure is guaranteed.
She referenced Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution, which mandates political parties to conduct periodic elections on a democratic basis, as well as Article 23 of the ADC constitution, which provides that national and state officers shall hold office for a maximum of two terms of eight years.
On whether any infraction was committed by the defendants in convening meetings and appointing a congress committee, the judge noted that while courts generally refrain from interfering in internal party affairs, they have a duty to act where constitutional or statutory breaches are alleged.
She emphasised that political parties must strictly adhere to their constitutions and that courts are empowered to intervene in cases of violations. The procedure adopted by the defendants, including the appointment of a congress committee, was found to be inconsistent with the party’s constitution.
The court therefore ruled that the tenure of the state executive committees remains valid and must be allowed to run its course, stressing that only duly elected structures have the authority to conduct state congresses.
Consequently, Justice Abdulmalik set aside the appointment of the congress committee and restrained INEC from recognising any congress organised by it. She also barred Mark and other defendants from organising congresses or conventions outside the provisions of the party’s constitution and from taking steps that could undermine the authority of the state executive committees.
Earlier, the judge had ruled on preliminary objections and counter-affidavits filed by the defendants. She held that the subject matter of the case falls within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court under Section 251 of the Constitution.
On the argument that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust internal dispute resolution mechanisms, she declined to uphold the objection, stating that addressing it would amount to prematurely deciding substantive issues.
Regarding locus standi, the court held that the plaintiffs had the capacity to institute the suit based on the alleged violations and shared grievance, making the representative action valid.
The court subsequently dismissed the objections for lacking merit and resolved all issues in favour of the plaintiffs.
The defendants in the suit include the ADC, David Mark, Patricia Akwashiki, Malam Bolaji Abdullahi, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, Oserheimen Osunbor, and INEC.
The plaintiffs maintained that under both the ADC constitution and the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the tenure of state executive committees subsists until valid congresses are conducted, warning that any attempt to bypass them undermines internal party democracy.
However, the defendants argued in their filings that the matter concerned the internal affairs of a political party and was therefore not justiciable. They also challenged the competence of the suit and the locus standi of the plaintiffs, urging the court to dismiss the case.