The leadership crisis rocking the African Democratic Congress (ADC) took a dramatic turn on Wednesday as a Federal High Court in Abuja nullified the controversial congresses organised by the disputed David Mark-led caretaker leadership.
The development has deepened uncertainty within the opposition party ahead of a crucial Supreme Court judgment in the broader leadership tussle.
The ruling by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik has intensified anxiety within ADC and across political circles, as the Supreme Court prepares to deliver judgment in an appeal filed by Mark seeking to overturn lower court decisions challenging his authority and the legitimacy of the party’s caretaker structure.
The apex court is also considering a related PDP leadership dispute, making today’s proceedings critical to both parties’ futures.
Mark’s appeal before the Supreme Court arose from earlier rulings, including a Court of Appeal decision that dismissed his challenge to a Federal High Court ruling connected to suits filed by former ADC Deputy National Chairman, Nafiu Bala Gombe.
The court, in its judgment, also barred Mark and other prominent figures in the party from interfering with the functions and tenure of elected state executives.
The ruling is the latest development in the festering leadership dispute within the ADC, with clear implications for the control of party structures ahead of future political activities.
The case arose from an originating summons filed by Norman Obinna and six others on behalf of state chairpersons and executive committees of the party.
The plaintiffs challenged the legality of actions taken by a caretaker or interim national leadership, particularly the move to organise state congresses through an appointed committee.
They argued that the caretaker body lacked constitutional authority to organise such congresses or to appoint any committee for that purpose.
According to them, only duly elected party organs recognised under the party’s constitution possess the power to conduct congresses.
The plaintiffs, therefore, asked the court to affirm the tenure of the state executive committees and to restrain any parallel processes that could undermine their authority.
In resolving the dispute, Justice Abdulmalik held that the claims brought before the court were valid and deserving of judicial consideration, especially in view of alleged breaches of constitutional and statutory provisions.
She stated that she found “the issue in the originating summons meritorious”.
The judge framed the central issue as whether the second to sixth defendants, including Mark, had the constitutional or statutory authority to assume the powers of elected state organs of the ADC, whose tenure is guaranteed under the party’s constitution.
She relied on section 223 of the 1999 Constitution, which mandates that political parties conduct periodic elections based on democratic principles, 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, each spanning eight years.
She said, “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.”
On the defence raised by the defendants that the matter was an internal affair of a political party and therefore outside the court’s jurisdiction, the judge acknowledged the settled legal position but clarified its limits.
She held that while courts are generally reluctant to interfere in internal party matters, they will intervene where there is a clear allegation of violation of constitutional or statutory provisions.
“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,” she added.
Justice Abdulmalik stressed that political parties must operate strictly within the confines of their constitutions, noting that any deviation from prescribed procedures, particularly in leadership matters, cannot be justified under the guise of internal autonomy.
She found that the procedure adopted by the defendants, including the appointment of a “congress committee,” was not recognised by the ADC constitution and therefore invalid.
Consequently, the court held that the tenure of the state executive committees remains valid and must be allowed to run its full course without interference.
The judge further ruled that only those elected structures have the authority to organise state congresses, effectively nullifying any process initiated by the caretaker leadership.
*INEC barred from recognising disputed caretaker congresses
The court consequently barred the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising or participating in any congresses organised by the disputed caretaker leadership and restrained Mark, alongside Patricia Akwashiki, Bolaji Abdullahi, Rauf Aregbesola and Oserheimen Osunbor, from interfering in the constitutional responsibilities of ADC’s elected state executives.
Justice Abdulmalik held that ADC’s constitution and Nigeria’s constitutional provisions on internal democracy were clear and binding.
“The issue in the originating summons is meritorious,” the judge ruled, stressing that political parties must operate strictly within lawful constitutional frameworks.
The apex court’s eventual verdict is expected to determine whether the party’s disputed caretaker framework can be restored or whether constitutional control will remain with previously elected party structures.
*Kachikwu backs court verdict, says hijack bid has ‘failed woefully’
Meanwhile, a former ADC presidential candidate, Dumebi Kachikwu, welcomed the Federal High Court ruling, describing it as a decisive defeat for forces seeking to hijack the party.
“I had long warned that the African Democratic Congress is not for sale and that these political buccaneers would be shown the way out through the same back door they came in from,” Kachikwu declared.
“With this judgment, it has become clear that these desperados who attempted to hijack our party have failed woefully.”
“To our party faithful, I urge you to remain vigilant. The battle is not over till it is over. The ADC will be on next year’s ballot,” he said.
The ADC crisis, which began as an internal transition dispute in 2025, has now escalated into one of the country’s most consequential opposition leadership battles, involving multiple court rulings, rival factions and INEC interventions.
