By Our Reporter
The Federal High Court in Abuja has restrained the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising or participating in any congresses organised by the disputed caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
In a judgment delivered on Wednesday, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik also barred former Senate President, David Mark, and other prominent party figures from interfering with the functions and tenure of the party’s elected state executives.
The ruling marks a significant turning point in the protracted leadership crisis rocking the ADC, shifting the balance of power ahead of future political activities.
The legal battle followed an originating summons filed by Norman Obinna and six others, representing state chairpersons and executive committees across the country.
The plaintiffs challenged the legality of actions taken by an interim national leadership, specifically its move to organise state congresses through an appointed committee.
They argued that the caretaker body lacked the constitutional mandate to bypass duly elected party organs, which they insisted are the only bodies authorised to conduct such exercises.
Seeking judicial protection, the plaintiffs asked the court to affirm the tenure of existing state executive committees and halt any parallel processes designed to undermine them.
Delivering the verdict, Justice Abdulmalik held that the plaintiffs’ claims were “meritorious,” particularly in light of alleged breaches of statutory provisions.
She framed the core of the dispute around whether the second to sixth defendants—including David Mark—possessed the authority to usurp the powers of elected state organs whose tenures are protected by the party’s constitution.
The judge cited Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution, which mandates that political parties conduct periodic elections on democratic principles.
She further referenced Article 23 of the ADC Constitution, which stipulates a maximum of two terms (eight years) for national and state officers.
“The question is 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,” the judge noted.
Addressing the defendants’ argument that the dispute was an “internal party affair” beyond the court’s jurisdiction, Justice Abdulmalik clarified the limits of judicial restraint.
While acknowledging that courts are generally reluctant to meddle in party politics, she maintained that judicial intervention is mandatory when constitutional or statutory violations are alleged.
“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.”
Justice Abdulmalik stressed that political parties must operate strictly within their own legal frameworks, adding that “internal autonomy” cannot be used as a shield for procedural illegality.
The court found that the “congress committee” created by the defendants was not recognised by the ADC constitution and was, therefore, invalid.
In a final blow to the caretaker leadership, the court held that the tenure of the current state executive committees remains valid and must be allowed to run its full course without outside interference.
