*Restrains INEC From Recognising Any Congress Organised By Disputed Leadership, Upholds State Executives’ Tenure
The Federal High Court in Abuja has restrained the Independent National Electoral Commission from recognising or participating in any congress organised by the disputed caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress, voided the appointment of a congress committee by the Mark-led faction, upheld the tenure of elected state executive committees, and barred former Senate President David Mark and other prominent party figures from interfering with the functions of state executives, in a judgment delivered by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik that adds yet another layer of judicial complexity to the ADC’s already labyrinthine leadership crisis.
The ruling, delivered on Wednesday, comes while the Supreme Court’s judgment in the ADC leadership appeal, heard on April 22 and reserved without a date, remains pending, creating the extraordinary situation where a lower court has delivered a substantive ruling on party structures while the apex court is still deliberating on the foundational jurisdictional question of whether courts can intervene in the ADC’s internal affairs at all.
The suit was filed by Norman Obinna and six others in a representative capacity on behalf of ADC state chairpersons and executive committees across the country. The originating summons challenged the legality of actions taken by the caretaker or interim national leadership, particularly the move to organise state congresses through an appointed committee.
The plaintiffs argued that the caretaker body lacked constitutional authority to organise congresses or to appoint any committee for that purpose. They contended that only duly elected party organs recognised under the ADC constitution possess the power to conduct congresses, and asked the court to affirm the tenure of state executive committees and restrain any parallel processes that could undermine their authority.
The defendants include the ADC, David Mark, Patricia Akwashiki, Malam Bolaji Abdullahi, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, Oserheimen Osunbor, and INEC.
Mark and the other defendants opposed the suit through preliminary objections, counter-affidavits, and written addresses. They advanced three primary arguments.
First, they contended the dispute related strictly to the internal affairs of the party and was therefore not justiciable, relying on the general principle, reinforced by Section 83 of the Electoral Act 2026, that courts should not interfere in the domestic affairs of political parties.
Second, they argued the plaintiffs lacked locus standi to institute the action.
Third, they submitted that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust internal dispute resolution mechanisms before approaching the court, and that the suit was incompetent.
Justice Abdulmalik addressed the jurisdictional objection directly, acknowledging the settled legal position on judicial restraint in party matters but clarifying its limits.
“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,” the judge added.
The ruling draws the distinction that Ubani SAN articulated in his recent analysis of Section 83: that judicial non-interference in party affairs is “a rule of prudence, not a rule of absolute prohibition,” and that once a dispute involves violation of constitutional or statutory provisions, the courts’ jurisdiction is activated.
Justice Abdulmalik found that the claims raised genuine questions about whether the Mark-led leadership had breached the ADC constitution and the 1999 Constitution in organising congresses through a body not recognised by the party’s governing document.
“I found the issue in the originating summons meritorious,” the judge stated.
Justice Abdulmalik relied on two key provisions to ground her ruling.
Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution mandates political parties to conduct periodic elections based on democratic principles. This provision imposes a constitutional obligation on parties to follow democratic internal processes and subjects those processes to judicial oversight where they fall short of the constitutional standard.
Article 23 of the ADC Constitution provides that national and state officers shall hold office for a maximum of two terms spanning eight years. This provision establishes a fixed tenure for elected party executives that cannot be arbitrarily curtailed by a caretaker or interim body.
The judge framed the central question as “whether there is any infraction committed by Mr Mark and co-defendants when they convened meetings and appointed a body known as a congress committee to organise state congresses.”
Justice Abdulmalik held that the procedure adopted by the defendants, including the appointment of a “congress committee,” was not recognised by the ADC constitution and was therefore invalid.
“Political parties must operate strictly within the confines of their constitutions,” the judge stated, noting that “any deviation from prescribed procedures, particularly in leadership matters, cannot be justified under the guise of internal autonomy.”
She found that the tenure of the state executive committees remains valid and must be allowed to run its full course without interference. Only those elected structures have the authority to organise state congresses, effectively nullifying any process initiated by the caretaker leadership.
The court issued a set of far-reaching orders.
The appointment of the congress committee was set aside as invalid and unconstitutional under the ADC’s governing documents.
INEC was restrained from recognising or participating in any congress organised by the congress committee or the caretaker leadership.
Mark and the other defendants were restrained from organising congresses or conventions outside the provisions of the party’s constitution.
The defendants were further barred from taking any steps capable of undermining or disrupting the authority of the state executive committees.
The judgment creates a significant complication in the context of the pending Supreme Court appeal.
On April 22, the Supreme Court heard arguments in appeal SC/CV/180/2026, in which the Mark-led faction argued that courts lack jurisdiction over the ADC’s internal affairs, citing the Supreme Court’s own March 2025 judgment that “no court has jurisdiction to entertain cases bordering on internal affairs of political parties.” The apex court reserved judgment without setting a date.
Justice Abdulmalik’s ruling on Wednesday effectively reached the merits of a related dispute while the Supreme Court is still deliberating on the threshold question of whether courts have jurisdiction over such disputes at all.
If the Supreme Court ultimately rules that courts lack jurisdiction over the ADC’s internal affairs, Justice Abdulmalik’s judgment could be rendered void as having been delivered without jurisdiction. If the Supreme Court rules that the courts have jurisdiction, the judgment could stand as a valid exercise of judicial authority.
The timing also raises questions about judicial coordination. Justice Nwite of the Federal High Court had adjourned the Gombe suit indefinitely, declaring it would be “judicial rascality” to proceed while the Supreme Court was seized of a related issue. Justice Abdulmalik, facing a different but related suit, chose to proceed to judgment rather than await the Supreme Court’s determination.
The different approaches by two Federal High Court judges to similar jurisdictional questions in related ADC disputes illustrate the fragmented nature of the litigation and the absence of a coordinated judicial response to the party’s crisis.
For the Mark-led faction, the ruling is a significant setback at the worst possible time.
