A Federal High Court in Abuja has barred 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).
Delivering judgment on Wednesday, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik also restrained the faction led by former Senate President, David Mark, from interfering with the functions and tenure of duly elected state executives of the party.
The court held that the responsibility for conducting state congresses rests with the party’s state executive committees, not the national leadership.
Justice Abdulmalik affirmed that the four-year tenure of ADC State Working Committees and State Executive Committees remains valid and subsisting, pending the conduct of properly constituted congresses and a national convention.
She further ruled that neither the Constitution of Nigeria nor the ADC constitution empowers the party’s Caretaker/Interim National Working Committee, led by Mark, to appoint any committee to conduct state congresses.
The suit was filed by aggrieved ADC state chairmen, led by Norman Obinna and six others, who challenged the legality of actions taken by the caretaker national leadership.
The plaintiffs argued that the interim body lacked constitutional authority to organise state congresses or appoint committees for that purpose, urging the court to affirm their tenure and halt any parallel processes.
In her ruling, Justice Abdulmalik described the suit as meritorious, noting that the key issue was whether the defendants, including Mark, had the legal authority to assume the powers of elected state party organs whose tenure is constitutionally guaranteed.
Citing Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution, she emphasised that political parties must conduct periodic elections based on democratic principles. She also referenced provisions of the ADC constitution stipulating tenure limits for party officials.
On the defendants’ argument that the matter concerned the internal affairs of a political party, the court held that while such matters are generally non-justiciable, the judiciary can intervene where there is a breach of constitutional or statutory provisions.
“Where a party alleges violation of its constitution, the court is bound to adjudicate,” she ruled, dismissing claims that the court lacked jurisdiction.
Justice Abdulmalik found that the procedure adopted by the defendants, including the appointment of a “congress committee,” was not recognised by the ADC constitution.
She consequently set aside the committee and restrained INEC from recognising any congress conducted by it. The court also barred Mark and other defendants from organising congresses or conventions outside the provisions of the party’s constitution.
Additionally, the defendants were restrained from taking any steps capable of undermining or disrupting the authority of the state executive committees.
On preliminary objections raised by the defence, the court held that the case falls within its jurisdiction under Section 251 of the Constitution, as it involves INEC.
The judge also dismissed arguments that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust internal dispute resolution mechanisms, stating that resolving such claims would amount to determining substantive issues prematurely.
On locus standi, the court ruled that the plaintiffs had the legal capacity to institute the suit, having demonstrated a common grievance arising from alleged constitutional violations.
The defendants in the case include the ADC, David Mark, Patricia Akwashiki, Bolaji Abdullahi, Rauf Aregbesola, Oserheimen Osunbor, and INEC.
The plaintiffs had urged the court to restrain INEC from recognising any congress organised by the caretaker committee, arguing that any attempt to bypass elected state structures undermines internal party democracy.
However, the defendants maintained that the matter was purely internal and not subject to judicial intervention, also questioning the competence of the suit.
The court, however, resolved all objections in favour of the plaintiffs.
