The Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday restrained the Independent National Electoral Commission from recognising or participating in any congress organised by a disputed caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress.
In a judgment delivered by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, the court also barred former Senate President, David Mark, and other party figures from interfering with the functions and tenure of elected state executives.
Court Upholds State Executives’ Tenure
The case, instituted by Norman Obinna and six others on behalf of state chairpersons and executive committees, challenged the legality of actions taken by an interim national leadership of the party.
The plaintiffs argued that the caretaker body lacked constitutional authority to organise congresses or appoint committees for that purpose.
Delivering judgment, Justice Abdulmalik held that the claims were valid, describing the originating summons as “meritorious.”
Caretaker Committee Declared Invalid
The judge ruled that the appointment of a “congress committee” by the defendants was not recognised under the ADC constitution and therefore invalid.
She held that only duly elected party organs have the authority to conduct congresses.
Consequently, the court affirmed that the tenure of the state executive committees remains valid and must not be disrupted.
Court Clarifies Jurisdiction On Party Matters
On the argument that the matter was an internal party affair, the court acknowledged that such disputes are generally non-justiciable but clarified that exceptions exist.
“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,” Justice Abdulmalik ruled.
She added that any claim that the court lacked jurisdiction on that basis must fail.
Orders Against Mark, Others
The court restrained Mark and other defendants from organising congresses or conventions outside the provisions of the party’s constitution.
It also barred them from taking any steps capable of undermining the authority of the state executive committees.
Additionally, the court set aside the appointment of the congress committee and nullified any processes initiated by it.
Plaintiffs Challenge Caretaker Leadership
The plaintiffs maintained that under the ADC constitution and the 1999 Constitution, the tenure of state executives subsists until valid congresses are conducted in line with laid-down procedures.
They argued that any attempt to bypass elected structures undermines internal party democracy and the rule of law.
Defendants Raise Objections
However, the defendants, including the ADC and other party leaders, opposed the suit, arguing that it concerned internal party affairs.
They also challenged the competence of the suit, contending that the plaintiffs lacked the legal standing to institute the action and failed to exhaust internal dispute resolution mechanisms.
Despite these objections, the court proceeded to deliver judgment in favour of the plaintiffs.
