A Federal High Court in Abuja has restrained the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising or participating in any state congresses organised by the caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
In a judgment delivered on Wednesday, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik held that the four-year tenure of the party’s state working committees and state executive committees remains valid and subsisting, pending the conduct of properly constituted congresses and a national convention.
The court ruled that neither the Constitution of Nigeria nor the ADC constitution empowers the caretaker or interim national working committee, led by former Senate President David Mark, to appoint committees for the conduct of state congresses.
RELATED NEWS:
- Court Asked to Halt INEC Recognition of David Mark as ADC Leader
- Supreme Court Reserves Judgment in Mark’s Appeal Over ADC Leadership Crisis
- Appeal Court Affirms Judgment Barring INEC From Validating PDP Convention
Justice Abdulmalik held that the responsibility for organising state congresses lies with the party’s state executive committees and not the national executive structure.
She also restrained the Mark-led leadership from interfering with the functions and tenure of elected state executives.
Court Declares Issues Raised By Plaintiff As Meritorious
The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/581/2026, was filed by aggrieved party members, including Don Norman Obinna, Johnny Tovie Derek, Obah Ehigiator, Olona Yinka, Charles Omideji, Samuel Pam Gyang, and Obianyo Patrick, who sued on behalf of themselves and other state chairmen and executive members of the ADC.
The plaintiffs argued that the caretaker leadership lacked constitutional authority to organise state congresses or appoint committees for that purpose, urging the court to affirm their tenure and stop any parallel arrangements.
In her ruling, Justice Abdulmalik held that the issues raised in the originating summons were meritorious.
She said the central question was whether the defendants, including Mark, had constitutional or statutory authority to assume the powers of elected state party organs whose tenure is constitutionally guaranteed.
Citing Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution, she noted that political parties must conduct periodic elections on a democratic basis, while Article 23 of the ADC constitution provides for fixed tenure for party officers.
Addressing the argument that the matter concerned internal party affairs, the judge held that courts have a duty to intervene where there are allegations of breach of constitutional or statutory provisions.
She ruled that any claim that the court lacked jurisdiction was not sustainable, adding that political parties must comply strictly with their constitutions and internal rules.
Rafiyat Sadiq is a political, justice, and human rights reporter with Pinnacle Daily, known for fearless reporting and impactful storytelling. At Pinnacle Daily, she brings clarity and depth to issues shaping governance, democracy, and the protection of citizens’ rights.