RismadarVoice Reporters, April 29, 2026
The Federal High Court in Abuja has restrained the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising or participating in any congress organised by the disputed caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, who delivered the judgment on Wednesday, also barred former Senate President David Mark and other prominent party figures from interfering with the functions and tenure of elected state executives.
The ruling marks the latest development in the lingering leadership crisis within the ADC and carries significant implications for the control of party structures ahead of future political activities.
The suit was instituted by Norman Obinna and six others on behalf of state chairpersons and executive committees of the party through an originating summons.
The plaintiffs challenged the legality of actions taken by the caretaker or interim national leadership, particularly its move to organise state congresses through an appointed committee.
They argued that the caretaker body lacked constitutional authority to organise congresses or appoint any committee for that purpose, insisting that only duly elected party organs recognised under the ADC constitution possess such powers.
They consequently urged the court to affirm the tenure of the state executive committees and restrain any parallel process capable of undermining their authority.
In her judgment, Justice Abdulmalik held that the claims were valid and deserving of judicial determination, describing the originating summons as “meritorious.”
She identified the central issue as whether David Mark and the other defendants had constitutional or statutory authority to assume the powers of elected state organs of the party, whose tenure is guaranteed under the ADC constitution.
The judge relied on Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution, which mandates political parties to 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 spanning eight years.
She ruled that while courts generally refrain from interfering in the internal affairs of political parties, judicial intervention becomes necessary where constitutional or statutory breaches 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 held.
Justice Abdulmalik further stressed that political parties must operate strictly within the framework of their constitutions and that any deviation from laid-down procedures, especially on leadership matters, cannot be justified under the guise of internal autonomy.
She found that the appointment of the “congress committee” by the defendants was not recognised by the ADC constitution and was therefore invalid.
Consequently, the court upheld the tenure of the state executive committees, ruling that they must be allowed to complete their constitutional term without interference.
The court also held that only duly elected structures have the authority to organise state congresses, effectively nullifying any process initiated by the caretaker leadership.
In a series of far-reaching orders, the court set aside the appointment of the congress committee and restrained INEC from recognising any congress organised by it.
It also restrained David Mark and the other defendants from organising congresses or conventions outside the provisions of the party’s constitution, and barred them from taking any steps capable of undermining the authority of the state executive committees.
The defendants in the suit include the ADC, David Mark, Patricia Akwashiki, Malam Bolaji Abdullahi, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, Oserheimen Osunbor, and INEC.
The defendants had opposed the suit through preliminary objections, counter-affidavits, and written addresses, arguing that the matter was an internal party affair beyond the court’s jurisdiction.
They also contended that the plaintiffs lacked the legal standing to institute the action and failed to exhaust internal dispute resolution mechanisms before approaching the court.
However, the court dismissed the objections and ruled in favour of the plaintiffs.
