Judge Voids Mark-led ADC Congresses As Supreme Court Rules On Party’s Crisis Today

By Chibuzo Ukaibe, Olakunle Olasanmi and Samson Elijah, Abuja

The political crisis in the African Democratic Congress (ADC) deepened yesterday after a Federal High Court in Abuja nullified state congresses organised by the David Mark-led faction, even as the Supreme Court prepares to deliver judgment today on the party’s protracted leadership dispute.

The judge, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, also stopped the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising or participating in any congress organised by the ADC leadership.

She also barred former Senate President David Mark and other prominent figures in the party from interfering with the functions and tenure of elected state executives.

Norman Obinna and six others, on behalf of state chairpersons and executive committees of the party, filed the case challenging 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 the constitutional authority to organise such congresses or appoint any committee for that purpose, insisting that only duly elected party organs recognised under the party constitution have such powers.

The plaintiffs therefore asked the court to affirm the tenure of the state executive committees and restrain any parallel processes that could undermine their authority.

In delivering judgment, Justice Abdulmalik held that the claims before the court were valid and deserving of judicial consideration, particularly 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 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 of eight years.

According to her, “the question is whether there was 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 that the matter was an internal party affair and outside the court’s jurisdiction, the judge acknowledged the general principle but clarified its limits.

She held that while courts are generally reluctant to interfere in internal party matters, they will intervene where there is an allegation of a breach 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.”

Justice Abdulmalik stressed that political parties must operate strictly within their constitutions and that any deviation from prescribed procedures cannot be justified as internal autonomy.

She found that the appointment of a “congress committee” was not recognised by the ADC constitution and was therefore invalid.

Consequently, she held that the tenure of the state executive committees remains valid and must be allowed to run its full course without interference.

However, the Mark-led ADC yesterday said it has engaged its legal team on the next step to take over the high court judgement.

What does this mean for the ADC?

On the face of it, the ruling protects existing state structures, undermines the Mark-led restructuring efforts, and escalates the leadership dispute—making the anticipated Supreme Court decision the critical turning point for the party’s future.

There is also a risk to 2027 election readiness, as continued legal uncertainty could affect the party’s ability to organise properly, present candidates, and meet electoral deadlines if the crisis drags on.

However, according to a legal expert, Liborous Oshoma, who spoke on Politics Today on Channels Television yesterday, courts are not entirely barred from intervening in the internal affairs of political parties.

He noted that while Section 83 is often cited to limit such intervention, judicial authorities can step in where there are violations of a party’s constitution, the Electoral Act, the Nigerian Constitution, or where criminality is alleged.

According to him, the court’s decision was based on findings that the ADC breached its own constitutional provisions by excluding duly recognised state executives—who are statutory members of the party’s National Executive Committee (NEC)—from its congresses.

“The implication is that any congress conducted without the participation of these state executives is invalid,” Oshoma said.

The court subsequently nullified the congresses and directed INEC not to recognise any outcomes arising from the exercise.

The ruling is seen as a major setback for the faction aligned with former Senate President David Mark, as it casts doubt on the legitimacy of the leadership structure that emerged from the disputed convention.

Oshoma further noted that the judgment has created a significant legal and procedural dilemma for the party. Although the tenure of the affected state executives is still subsisting, it is set to expire soon, leaving insufficient time to comply with the mandatory 21-day notice required to conduct fresh congresses.

“This makes it practically impossible to comply with the law within the available time,” he said.

He added that multiple ongoing litigations involving different factions of the party have compounded the crisis, creating uncertainty over which leadership structure is legally recognised.

The legal expert disclosed that the faction loyal to Mark has approached the Supreme Court seeking an accelerated hearing to determine its status and enable it to meet critical electoral deadlines, particularly for party primaries.

However, Oshoma warned that even a favourable ruling from the apex court may not override the Federal High Court judgment, as both cases arise from separate legal issues and may require independent appeals.

Describing the situation as a “self-inflicted challenge,” he said the ADC entered the election cycle burdened with unresolved internal disputes, making it vulnerable to legal setbacks.

He cautioned that prolonged litigation could keep the party tied down in courtrooms close to election timelines, potentially weakening its ability to mobilise effectively.

“I think they might just keep ADC busy in court until a few days to the election, and it may be too late for them to hit the ground running,” he said.

Supreme Court to rule on ADC, PDP leadership crises today

Meanwhile, attention has shifted to the Supreme Court, which has fixed April 30 for judgment in the leadership tussle within the ADC.

A five-member panel led by Justice Mohammed Garba will resolve the appeal filed by the David Mark-led faction concerning the authentic leadership of the party.

Also on Thursday, the court is expected to determine the leadership dispute rocking the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

Two PDP factions—one led by Kabir Turaki and the other by the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike—are laying claim to the leadership of the party.

The Supreme Court had on April 22 reserved judgment in the ADC crisis to a date to be communicated to the parties involved in the tussle.

However, on Tuesday, the ADC formally wrote to the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, pleading for the quick delivery of judgment in the leadership tussle at the national level.

The party claimed it would suffer irreparable harm if judgment in the protracted battle was not delivered within the period allowed by the Electoral Act for fielding candidates for the 2027 general elections.

It stated in part: “Without the delivery of judgment within the next three days from the date of this letter, the ADC stands the grave and irreversible risk of being excluded from participating in the 2027 general elections.

“This would disenfranchise millions of Nigerians who have subscribed to the ideals of the ADC and deny them their constitutional right to freely associate and contest elections through a political party of their choice.”

At the April 22 hearing, Jibrin Okutepa, SAN, who represented David Mark, urged the Supreme Court to allow the appeal, arguing that the apex court had earlier, on March 21, 2025, held that “no court has jurisdiction to entertain matters bordering on the internal affairs of political parties.”

During the hearing, Okutepa urged the apex court to hold that the Federal High Court in Abuja lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

However, Robert Emukperu, SAN, who represented the first respondent, Nafiu Gombe, urged the court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the lower court, which held that the suit was premature.

It will be recalled that a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal dismissed Mark’s appeal, ruling that it was premature and filed without leave of the trial court.

In the PDP matter, the first appeal, marked SC/CV/164/2026, stems from a decision of Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja, who restrained the party from proceeding with its planned convention pending the determination of a suit filed by former Jigawa State Governor Sule Lamido.

On November 14, the court issued a final order restraining the PDP from conducting its national convention.

Justice Lifu held that Lamido was “unjustly denied” the opportunity to obtain a nomination form to contest for national chairman, in violation of the PDP constitution and internal regulations.

The Court of Appeal later upheld the decision on March 9, prompting the PDP to appeal.

The second appeal, SC/CV/166/2026, was filed by the PDP, its National Working Committee (NWC), and National Executive Committee (NEC).

It arose from a judgment delivered by Justice James Omotosho, which stopped the party from holding its Ibadan national convention.

The Court of Appeal upheld that decision, agreeing that INEC should not validate the outcome of the convention.

After hearing all arguments, the Supreme Court reserved judgment, stating that the date would be communicated to the parties.