By Vincent Egunyanga, Abuja
The Court of Appeal in Abuja on Monday plunged the African Democratic Congress (ADC) into fresh uncertainty after affirming a Federal High Court order restraining the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising state congresses conducted by committees appointed by the Senator David Mark-led caretaker leadership of the party.
In a two-to-one split decision, the appellate court upheld the earlier ruling barring the party’s interim leadership from interfering with the tenure and functions of duly elected state executives and from organising state congresses through appointed committees.
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Okon Abang held that there was no basis to overturn the April 29 decision of the Federal High Court, which recognised the authority of elected state structures over party administration at that level.
The majority judgment, supported by Justice Donatus Okorowo, affirmed that responsibility for conducting state-level elections rests squarely with elected state executive committees and not with a caretaker national leadership.
“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.”
Justice Abang further held that the court had a responsibility to intervene where constitutional breaches threaten democratic processes within political parties.
“The court has a duty to intervene to prevent anarchy and ensure the survival of democracy in Nigeria.”
The appellate court agreed with the findings of the trial judge, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, that neither the 1999 Constitution nor the ADC constitution empowered the David Mark-led caretaker committee to appoint panels to conduct state congresses.
It equally upheld the lower court’s position that the four-year tenure of the party’s State Working Committees and State Executive Committees remains valid and subsisting pending the proper Constitution of congresses and the convocation of a national convention.
The legal battle arose from a suit filed by aggrieved party members acting on behalf of ADC state chairmen and state executive committees across the federation.
The plaintiffs challenged the interim leadership’s decision to establish committees to oversee state congresses, arguing that this violated both the Nigerian Constitution and the party’s Constitution.
In her earlier ruling, Justice Abdulmalik held that only elected party organs recognised under the ADC constitution possess the authority to organise state congresses and elect delegates.
She stressed that although courts are generally reluctant to interfere in the domestic affairs of political parties, judicial intervention becomes inevitable where constitutional or statutory breaches are alleged.
The appellate court also dismissed arguments that the matter was purely an internal affair of the party and therefore outside judicial scrutiny.
Relying on a recent Supreme Court decision arising from the leadership crisis in the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), the court held that alleged constitutional violations within political parties are justiciable.
The court subsequently dismissed the ADC’s appeal and awarded costs of ₦10 million against the party.
Significantly, the court held that the congresses and the national convention conducted by the caretaker leadership were a nullity because they were held despite a subsisting court order.
The ruling is expected to trigger fresh debates over the legal standing of structures and decisions emanating from the interim leadership as opposition parties intensify preparations for the 2027 elections.
However, the chairman of the appellate panel, Justice Abba Mohammed, dissented from the majority decision, holding that the dispute related to the internal affairs of a political party and ought not to have been entertained by the courts.
“The matter borders on the internal affairs of a political party and is therefore non-justiciable.”
Reacting swiftly to the verdict, the ADC dismissed suggestions that the ruling could affect its electoral preparations or the emergence of candidates for the 2027 polls.
National Publicity Secretary of the party, Bolaji Abdullahi, said the judgment had no impact on the direct primaries through which the party intends to nominate candidates at various levels.
“We wish to assure members of the party and the general public that this judgment has no effect whatsoever on the direct primaries through which the party’s candidates have emerged at all levels.”
The party also announced plans to challenge the decision at the Supreme Court, describing the verdict as inconsistent with established legal principles.
“The party has already commenced the process of appealing the judgment, which we respectfully disagree with and consider to be legally unsustainable.”
Abdullahi said the party drew comfort from the dissenting judgment delivered by the presiding justice of the panel.
“We also note the dissenting judgment of the presiding Justice, which, in our view, more accurately reflects the settled position of the law and the party’s position.”
The latest development opens another chapter in the legal contest for control of one of Nigeria’s emerging opposition platforms as political realignments ahead of the 2027 general elections gather momentum.
