Split judgment affirms that INEC cannot recognise state congresses conducted by committees appointed by the David Mark-led caretaker leadership
The Court of Appeal has upheld a Federal High Court judgment 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 African Democratic Congress (ADC).
Also read: ADC dissolves Kano executive, appoints caretaker committee
In a split two-to-one decision delivered in Abuja on Monday, the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s ruling that barred the caretaker leadership from interfering with the tenure and constitutional functions of the party’s duly elected state executive committees.
The ADC congresses appeal court decision was delivered by Justice Okon Abang, with Justice Donatus Okorowo concurring, while Justice Abba Mohammed delivered a dissenting opinion.
Justice Abang held that the Federal High Court was correct in restraining INEC from recognising the outcome of the disputed state congresses, ruling that responsibility for organising such congresses rests with the party’s elected state executive committees rather than a national caretaker leadership.
According to the court, neither the 1999 Constitution nor the ADC Constitution authorises a caretaker National Working Committee to appoint committees for the conduct of state congresses.
The appellate court further ruled that the tenure of the party’s State Working Committees and State Executive Committees remains valid until fresh congresses and a national convention are conducted in accordance with the party’s constitution.
The appeal arose from a suit filed by aggrieved members of the ADC, who challenged the decision of the David Mark-led caretaker committee to constitute committees for the conduct of state congresses.
The plaintiffs argued that only duly elected organs recognised under the party’s constitution possess the authority to organise state congresses.
Agreeing with the trial court, the Court of Appeal held that the congresses and national convention organised by the caretaker leadership were conducted in violation of a subsisting court order issued on April 14, rendering the exercise null and void.
Justice Abang noted that although courts generally refrain from interfering in the internal affairs of political parties, judicial intervention becomes appropriate where constitutional or statutory violations are alleged.
“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,” he said.
The court also rejected the argument that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust the ADC’s internal dispute resolution mechanism before approaching the courts.
It ruled that the plaintiffs had the legal standing to institute the action and that the Federal High Court possessed jurisdiction because the dispute directly involved INEC, a constitutionally recognised electoral body.
In his dissenting judgment, Justice Abba Mohammed maintained that the dispute related to the internal affairs of a political party and therefore fell outside the jurisdiction of the courts.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal filed by the ADC and awarded ₦10 million in costs against the party.
The judgment comes amid continuing legal disputes over the leadership and internal administration of several political parties ahead of preparations for the 2027 general elections.
Also read: ADC slams APC, backs Dare Bejide for Ekiti poll
Nigerian courts have consistently held that while political parties enjoy considerable autonomy in managing their affairs, judicial intervention is permissible where actions are alleged to contravene constitutional provisions, electoral laws or party constitutions.
David Okere is a journalist and contributor to Freelanews.com, covering business, governance, public affairs, and human-interest stories with a commitment to accuracy, balance, and public interest reporting.
