Breaking: Court Bars INEC From Registering ADC

Court bars INEC from recognising ADC caretaker congresses and restrains David Mark-led faction over party leadership dispute.

The Federal High Court in Abuja has issued sweeping orders restraining the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising or participating in any state congresses organised by the disputed caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).

Delivering judgment, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik also barred former Senate President, Senator David Mark, alongside other key figures in the party’s interim leadership, from interfering with the functions and constitutionally guaranteed tenure of elected state executive committees of the ADC.

The ruling followed an originating summons filed by Norman Obinna and six others, who instituted the case on behalf of ADC state chairpersons and their executive committees. The plaintiffs had challenged the legality of the party’s caretaker or interim national leadership, arguing that it lacks constitutional authority to organise state congresses or appoint committees for that purpose.

They urged the court to affirm the legitimacy of elected state executives and to halt what they described as parallel and unconstitutional structures capable of undermining internal party democracy.

In her ruling, Justice Abdulmalik held that the issues raised in the originating summons were “meritorious,” stressing that the core question before the court was whether the second to sixth defendants, including Senator Mark, had constitutional or statutory authority to assume the powers of elected state party organs whose tenure is protected under the party’s constitution.

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.

According to the judge, a central issue was whether any constitutional infraction was committed when the defendants convened meetings and appointed a “congress committee” to oversee state congresses.

Responding to arguments that the matter bordered on internal party affairs, Justice Abdulmalik acknowledged the general principle that courts do not interfere in political party administration. However, she maintained that where there is an allegation of breach of constitutional or statutory provisions, the court is duty-bound to intervene.

“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 ruled.

The court further held that political parties must strictly comply with their constitutions, adding that the procedure adopted by the defendants, including the creation of a “congress committee,” was not recognised under the ADC constitution.

Justice Abdulmalik ruled that the tenure of the existing state executive committees remains valid and must be allowed to run its full course, adding that only duly elected structures have the authority to organise state congresses.

Consequently, the court set aside the appointment of the disputed committee and restrained INEC from recognising any congresses conducted by it. It also barred Senator Mark and other defendants from organising congresses or conventions outside the provisions of the party’s constitution or taking any steps capable of undermining elected state executives.

The defendants in the suit include the ADC, Senator David Mark, Patricia Akwashiki, Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, Oserheimen Osunbor, and INEC.

The plaintiffs had argued that under both the ADC constitution and the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the tenure of state executive committees remains valid until properly conducted congresses are held, warning that bypassing them would erode internal party democracy.

However, the defendants, in preliminary objections and counter affidavits, urged the court to dismiss the suit, arguing that it was non-justiciable as it concerned internal party affairs, that the plaintiffs lacked locus standi, and that the suit was incompetent.

Before delivering judgment, Justice Abdulmalik ruled on the preliminary objections, holding that the subject matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court under Section 251 of the Constitution, as it relates to INEC’s functions.

On claims that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust internal dispute resolution mechanisms, the court declined to uphold the objection, stating that doing so would pre-empt the substantive issues.

She also ruled that the plaintiffs had established sufficient locus standi, noting that their standing arose from an alleged violation affecting them collectively, thereby justifying the representative action.

The interim orders are aimed at preserving the status quo pending the final determination of the substantive suit.