The Federal High Court in Abuja has restrained the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising or taking part in any congress organised by a disputed caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
In a judgment delivered on Wednesday, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik also prohibited former Senate President David Mark and other key figures from interfering with the functions and tenure of duly elected state executives of the party.
The ruling stems from a suit filed by Norman Obinna and six others on behalf of ADC state chairpersons and executive committees, who challenged the legality of actions taken by an interim national leadership, including the plan to conduct state congresses through an appointed committee.
The plaintiffs argued that the caretaker body lacked constitutional backing to organise such congresses or constitute committees for that purpose, insisting that only properly elected party organs have such authority.
Delegates of the ADC had in April during its convention approved amendments to the party’s constitution and ratified a new National Working Committee (NWC) led by David Mark at its national convention in Abuja.
The outcome was announced by the Chairman of the Electoral Sub-Committee, Emeka Ihedioha, who disclosed that 1,576 delegates were accredited for the exercise, with 11 votes declared void.
Ihedioha said 1,471 delegates voted in favour of the constitutional amendment, representing 94 percent support.
“Distinguished delegates, by virtue of this result announced, it means that the constitution of the African Democratic Congress has today been duly amended by this convention,” he said.
In her judgment, Abdulmalik held that the claims were valid and warranted judicial intervention, noting that there were clear allegations of breaches of both constitutional and party provisions.
She stated that she found “the issue in the originating summons meritorious”.
The judge framed the central question as whether Mark and other defendants had the legal authority to assume powers reserved for elected state organs of the party, whose tenure is protected under the ADC constitution.
Citing Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution and Article 23 of the ADC constitution, she emphasised that party leadership must emerge through democratic processes and adhere strictly to prescribed tenure limits.
Addressing the defendants’ argument that the dispute was an internal party matter beyond the court’s jurisdiction, the judge acknowledged the general principle but clarified that exceptions exist.
“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.
Justice Abdulmalik further held that the process adopted by the defendants—particularly the creation of a “congress committee”—was not recognised under the ADC constitution and was therefore invalid.
She affirmed that the tenure of the current state executive committees remains intact and must run its full course without interference.
Consequently, the court nullified the appointment of the congress committee and barred INEC from recognising any congress organised under it.
The court also restrained Mark and other defendants from conducting congresses or conventions outside the framework of the party’s constitution or taking actions capable of undermining the authority of elected state executives.
The defendants in the case include the ADC, Mark, Patricia Akwashiki, Malam Bolaji Abdullahi, Rauf Aregbesola, Oserheimen Osunbor, and INEC.
While the plaintiffs argued that bypassing elected structures weakens internal democracy and violates the rule of law, the defendants maintained that the matter was purely internal, questioned the plaintiffs’ legal standing, and said internal dispute mechanisms had not been exhausted.
