ADC heads to S’Court over congresses

By Baba Martins, Idowu Isamotu, Musa Luka Musa & (Abuja) Sani Ibrahim Paki, (Kano).   The African Democratic Congress (ADC) and its presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, have resolved to challenge the ruling of the Court of Appeal which yesterday restrained the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising the state congresses conducted by the David […]

By Baba Martins, Idowu Isamotu, Musa Luka Musa & (Abuja) Sani Ibrahim Paki, (Kano).

 

The African Democratic Congress (ADC) and its presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, have resolved to challenge the ruling of the Court of Appeal which yesterday restrained the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising the state congresses conducted by the David Mark-led caretaker leadership of the party.

The ADC and Atiku expressed the decision in separate statements while reacting to the Appeal Court’s judgement.

The Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, affirmed the judgement of the Federal High Court restraining the INEC from recognising or participating in the state congresses conducted by a committee appointed by the David Mark-led caretaker leadership.

The appellate court dismissed the appeal marked CA/ABJ/CV/608/2026, affirming the April 29 judgement of Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, which barred the caretaker leadership from interfering with the tenure and functions of the party’s elected state executive committees.

The ADC, in a swift reaction, said it had commenced the process of appealing the judgement, “which we respectfully disagree with and consider to be legally unsustainable.”

In the statement by its National Publicity Secretary, Malam Bolaji Abdullahi, the party said the dissenting judgement of the presiding Justice “more accurately reflects the settled position of the law and the party’s position.”

Atiku, in a statement by his media adviser, Phrank Shuaibu, said he had  instructed his legal team to approach the Supreme Court for a definitive determination of the issues arising from the judgement.

He said that is the proper constitutional path while affirming  absolute confidence in the judicial process.

“Let no supporter of the ADC lose sleep. Let no Nigerian who believes in the restoration of our country be discouraged. The struggle to rescue Nigeria has never been about one courtroom or one judgement. It is a movement born out of the collective desire of millions of Nigerians for competent leadership, economic recovery, national unity and the restoration of hope.

“We, therefore, urge our members across the federation to remain calm, united and focused. Stay committed to the mission. Continue mobilising. Continue organising. Continue believing. No amount of legal gymnastics or political spin can extinguish the legitimate aspirations of Nigerians for a better country,” he stated.

 

How the judgement was delivered

The three-man panel of the Federal Court of Appeal was  led by Justice Abba Mohammed, but the lead judgement, was delivered by Justice Okon Abang.

The Federal High Court had, in its judgement, held that the four-year tenure of the ADC’s State Working Committees and State Executive Committees remained valid and subsisting, pending the conduct of properly constituted congresses and the convocation of a national convention.

The judgement followed a suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/581/2026, filed before the court by aggrieved members of the party.

The plaintiffs: Don Norman Obinna, Johnny Tovie Derek, Obah C. Ehigiator, Hon. Olona Yinka, Dr. Charles Idowu Omideji, Samuel Pam Gyang and Obianyo Patrick had told the court that they sued for themselves and on behalf of all state chairmen and state executive committees of the ADC.

Listed as defendants in the matter are the ADC; Sen. David Mark; Sen. Patricia Akwashiki; Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi; Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola; and Prof. Oserheimen Osunbor (sued on behalf of the Caretaker/Interim National Working Committee) and INEC.

 

What happened at Federal High Court in April

The plaintiffs had, among other things, challenged the decision of the Senator Mark-led leadership of the ADC to constitute committees for the purpose of conducting state congresses.

They challenged the validity of appointments made by the Mark-led caretaker committee, arguing that planned state congresses slated for April 2026, if conducted under the supervision of the said caretaker committee, would constitute a gross violation of the party’s constitution.

It said only duly elected party organs recognised under the party’s constitution possess the power to conduct congresses.

Justice Abdulmalik, while agreeing with the plaintiffs, held that neither the 1999 Constitution, as amended, nor the constitution of the ADC empowered the caretaker/interim National Working Committee led by Mark to appoint committees for the purpose of conducting state congresses.

The court held that the claims brought before it by the plaintiffs were valid and deserving of judicial consideration, citing alleged breach of constitutional and statutory provisions.

It held that Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, mandates political parties to conduct periodic elections based on democratic principles, adding that Article 23 of the ADC constitution also provides that national and state officers shall hold office for a maximum of two terms spanning eight years.

Justice Abdulmalik stressed that although courts are generally reluctant to interfere in the domestic affairs of political parties, they nonetheless intervene where there is a clear allegation of violation of constitutional or statutory provisions.

She held that evidence before the court established that the tenure of the state executive committees of the ADC remained valid and must be allowed to run its full course without interference.

The court stressed that only those elected structures have the authority to organise state congresses, and it accordingly nullified any process initiated by the Senator Mark-led caretaker leadership.

Earlier, the court dismissed a preliminary objection filed by the defendants challenging the competence of the suit and the court’s jurisdiction to entertain it.

It held that the subject matter of the plaintiffs’ action pertained to the affairs of INEC and therefore fell within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court under Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.

The court also waved aside the defendants’ contention that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust internal dispute resolution mechanisms before instituting the action.

 

Appeal Court ruling

Delivering the lead judgement, Justice Okon Abang held that there was no basis to set aside the lower court’s decision, stressing that the authority to conduct state congresses rests with elected state executive committees and not a caretaker national leadership.

Justice Donatus Okorowo concurred with the lead judgement, while the presiding Justice of the panel, Justice Abba Mohammed, dissented.

Justice Mohammed held that the dispute bordered on the internal affairs of a political party and was therefore non-justiciable, adding that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

The majority, however, held that the matter involved constitutional questions warranting judicial intervention.

Justice Abang held that once a complaint is founded on alleged constitutional infractions, the defence that the matter is an internal party affair no longer applies.

He said, “Once a complaint before the court is anchored on a constitutional infraction, the shield of internal affairs drops and the veil is lifted for judicial intervention.” The appellate court added that intervention was necessary to “prevent anarchy and ensure the survival of democracy in Nigeria.”

Relying on a recent Supreme Court judgement arising from the leadership crisis in the Peoples Democratic Party, the court held that the ADC dispute could not be classified as a mere domestic affair of a political party.

It also ruled that the congresses and national convention conducted by the Mark-led caretaker committee were nullities, having been held in defiance of a subsisting order issued by the Federal High Court on April 14.

The court consequently awarded N10m costs against the ADC.

In his dissenting judgement, however, Justice Mohammed disagreed with the decision that the trial court had jurisdiction to hear the case.

He upheld the appellants’ challenge to the jurisdiction of the trial court, noting that the court had no business interfering in political decisions.

He further added that the function of the state executive committees were only to prepare the agenda for the state congresses, rather than conduct the congresses, adding that the action of the 1st to 7th respondents was immature.

 

‘INEC awaiting certified court judgement’

The INEC’s Director of Voter Education and Publicity, Mrs. Victoria Eta-Messi, did not respond to calls and WhatsApp messages seeking the commission’s reaction to the ruling, but an official said the commission would obtain and study the Certified True Copy of the judgement before determining its next line of action.

The official, who told Daily Trust that he was yet to be fully briefed on the appellate court’s decision, said the INEC’s litigation department would verify the judgement and advise the commission accordingly.

“We will need a Certified True Copy of the judgment. The commission will study it and discuss its implications before taking a decision,” the source said.

The official declined comment on the possible implications of the judgement for the ADC’s candidates, saying it would be premature for the commission to speculate until it had formally reviewed the appellate court’s decision.

 

Judgement won’t affect our primaries – ADC

The ADC’s spokesman, Abdullahi, assured members and the general public that the “judgement has no effect whatsoever on the direct primaries through which the party’s candidates have emerged at all levels.

“We urge all party members and the millions of our supporters to remain calm, confident and focused.

“The African Democratic Congress remains committed to the task of providing Nigerians with a credible alternative and will continue to pursue that mission in accordance with the Constitution and the rule of law.”

 

Ruling could destabilise Nigeria’s democracy – Fage

A political analyst and lecturer at Bayero University Kano, Professor Kamilu Sani Fage, has warned that yesterday’s ruling on the ADC congresses could destabilise Nigeria’s democratic process ahead of the 2027 general elections.

Speaking to Daily Trust, Fage said the judgement had “thrown a spanner in the wheel of ADC” and will create confusion within the party as it prepares for the polls.

He noted that while a higher court had previously ruled that such matters should not be entertained, the latest decision has barred recognition of the congresses, a development he described as “unnecessary” and likely to spark further litigation. “For sure ADC will appeal this issue,” he added.

Fage cautioned against the use of the judiciary for political ends, stressing that such rulings “are not going to augur well for our democracy.” He said decisions of this nature, coming on the eve of elections, risk destabilising the system.

On whether the ruling could fuel suspicion among opposition parties that the All Progressives Congress (APC) is manipulating the courts to weaken rivals, Fage said the perception is valid.

“The ruling will also add up to the suspicion that the ruling party and the government have a hand in this case,” he stated.

He recalled that similar disputes over internal party democracy had reached the Supreme Court in the past, questioning why the matter was being revisited.

“It is going to add to the suspicion that the government has a hand in the whole issue,” he said.

 

It’ll strengthen democracy – Lawyer

Addressing reporters after the ruling, counsel to respondents, Ikem Ogugua, said it had strengthened democracy.

He said, “The matter started from the Federal High Court but they thought it was a fluke. They were aggrieved with the judgement of the Federal High Court, so they decided to appeal against it.

“The main judgement of the Federal High Court was that the tenure of the State executives is still running, it hasn’t expired, and it cannot by any disguise be circumvented because it is provided in their constitution, the number of years they have to stay in the office.

“Being aggrieved against the judgement of the Federal High Court, the appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal, and the Court of Appeal today (yesterday) has affirmed the judgement of the Federal High Court.

“What it means is that, whatever they did, the State congresses they organized, the national convention they organized, the court has just nullified it. So, the implication is that, as it is today, whatever decision that convention has taken, it is a nullity.

“In other words, I don’t want to put it straightforward, it appears that as of today, the ADC doesn’t have any presidential candidate. I know they are going to appeal it to the Supreme Court, we will also test the law there. “What the court has done today is that it has deepened the internal democracy of the political parties.

“It has strengthened our democracy in general, because what it means is that nobody is above the law. No officer of a political party can just act with impunity.”

 

Judgement puts ADC’s 2027 ambition in jeopardy – Jide Ojo

A political analyst, Jide Ojo, has said the ruling poses a serious threat to the party’s preparations for the 2027 general elections.

Speaking to Daily Trust, Ojo described the ruling as “very unfortunate” and “saddening”, saying it has cast doubt on the legitimacy of the party’s current leadership and candidates produced through processes conducted under it.

He noted that both the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal found that the actions complained of violated provisions of the 1999 Constitution and the ADC constitution.

“The implication is very disturbing and very concerning because it has effectively undermined the legitimacy of the David Mark-led leadership,” he said.

According to him, the judgement means that candidates who emerged from congresses and primary processes conducted under the affected leadership risk not being recognised by INEC.

“The only option left for David Mark and his team is to approach the Supreme Court. As things stand now, INEC is bound to obey the subsisting court order,” he said.

Ojo said the judgement could also affect the party’s nomination process, noting that although the deadline for submission of candidates will soon elapse, INEC would be unable to process nominations arising from processes invalidated by the court.