ADC Heads To S’ Court As Appeal Court Bars INEC From Recognising Mark-led Congresses

By Ademu Idakwo, James Kwen and Olakunle Olasanmi, Abuja

The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has said it will challenge Monday’s Court of Appeal judgment on its ward, local government and state congresses at the Supreme Court, insisting that the verdict does not affect the validity of the direct primaries through which its candidates for the 2027 general elections emerged.

The party maintained that the appellate court judgment relates only to its ward, local government and state congresses and has no bearing on the direct primaries that produced its candidates for the forthcoming general elections.

In a statement issued on Monday by its National Publicity Secretary, Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi, shortly after the judgment, the ADC assured members and supporters that the verdict had no effect on the direct primaries through which its candidates emerged.

He said: “The African Democratic Congress (ADC) notes the judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal in Abuja on Monday in a matter relating to party congresses for the election of ward, local government and state executive committees of the party.

“We wish to assure members of the party and the general public that this judgment has no effect whatsoever on the direct primaries through which the party’s candidates have emerged at all levels.”

The party stated that it had commenced proceedings to challenge the judgment at the Supreme Court, insisting that it disagreed with the decision and considered it legally unsustainable.

According to Abdullahi, the dissenting judgment delivered by the presiding Justice more accurately reflected the settled position of the law and the party’s position on the matter.

“We also note the dissenting judgment of the presiding Justice, which, in our view, more accurately reflects the settled position of the law and the party’s position,” Abdullahi added.

The opposition party urged its members and supporters nationwide to remain calm and focused, assuring them that the legal process would be pursued to its logical conclusion.

It reaffirmed its commitment to providing Nigerians with what it described as a credible political alternative, stressing that it would continue to pursue its mission in line with the Constitution and the rule of law.

Also reacting to the judgment, the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC), through its National Publicity Secretary, Osa Director, alleged that the All Progressives Congress (APC)-led Federal Government was working to weaken opposition political parties and appealed to the judiciary not to allow itself to be used to undermine Nigeria’s democracy.

Osa said: “It is obvious that the APC government is more interested in a one-party state. They are doing everything possible to ensure that the opposition parties are dismantled. We are pleading with the judiciary not to allow it to be used to scuttle our hard-earned democracy.”

Earlier on Monday, the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of the Federal High Court restraining the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising or participating in any state congresses organised by committees appointed by the Senator David Mark-led caretaker leadership of the ADC.

In the lead judgment, Justice Okon Abang held that there was no basis to set aside the restraining order earlier issued by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court, Abuja, on 29 April.

Justice Abdulmalik had restrained the Mark-led executives from interfering with the tenure and functions of the party’s elected state executive committees.

The appellate court agreed that responsibility for organising and conducting state congresses of political parties rests with duly elected state executive committees and not the national leadership.

While Justices Okon Abang and Donatus Okorowo delivered the majority judgment barring INEC from recognising the outcome of congresses conducted by the Mark-led leadership of the ADC, the presiding Justice of the panel, Justice Abba Mohammed, delivered a dissenting judgment.

Justice Abang held that the appellant breached Section 223(1)(a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria through non-compliance with the party’s Constitution in the conduct of its affairs, thereby conferring jurisdiction on the trial court to entertain the suit.

The majority judgment also rejected the appellant’s argument that the dispute was purely an internal affair of the party.

Justice Abang held that the suspension of the state chairpersons and the appointment of a caretaker committee by the ADC to conduct a national convention were unlawful, unconstitutional, null and void.

According to him, the party violated its own Constitution by appointing a caretaker committee while the tenure of the elected state chairpersons was still subsisting.

He warned that courts could not fold their arms while political parties continued to violate both their constitutions and the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

However, in his minority judgment, Justice Abba Mohammed held that the dispute was a non-justiciable internal affair of a political party and that the trial court wrongly assumed jurisdiction.

Justice Mohammed said he could not agree with the majority’s decision that the Federal High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

He described both the majority judgment and the trial court’s judgment as perverse, insisting that the dispute concerned the internal affairs of the party.

He further held that the respondents instituted the action prematurely without exhausting their internal dispute-resolution mechanisms.

“Any judgment entered by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity. Accordingly, the Federal High Court judgment delivered on 29 April is hereby set aside for want of jurisdiction. The appeal is meritorious and allowed,” Justice Mohammed held.

The Federal High Court had, in its judgment, held that the four-year tenure of the ADC’s State Working Committees and State Executive Committees remained valid and subsisting pending the conduct of properly constituted congresses and the convocation of a national convention.

The judgment followed a suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/581/2026 filed by aggrieved members of the ADC.

The plaintiffs are Don Norman Obinna, Johnny Tovie Derek, Obah C. Ehigiator, Hon. Olona Yinka, Dr Charles Idowu Omideji, Samuel Pam Gyang and Obianyo Patrick, who sued for themselves and on behalf of all State Chairmen and State Executive Committees of the ADC.

Listed as defendants are the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Senator David Mark, Senator Patricia Akwashiki, Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, Professor Oserheimen Osunbor (sued on behalf of the Caretaker/Interim National Working Committee), and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

The plaintiffs challenged the decision of the Senator David Mark-led leadership of the ADC to constitute committees to conduct state congresses, arguing that only duly elected party organs recognised under the party’s Constitution possessed the authority to organise such congresses.

Agreeing with the plaintiffs, Justice Abdulmalik held that neither the 1999 Constitution, as amended, nor the Constitution of the ADC empowered the Caretaker/Interim National Working Committee led by Senator David Mark to appoint committees to conduct state congresses.

The court held that the claims disclosed constitutional and statutory violations warranting judicial intervention.

It further held that Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, mandates political parties to conduct periodic elections in accordance with democratic principles, while Article 23 of the ADC Constitution provides that national and state officers shall hold office for a maximum of two terms, each spanning eight years.

Justice Abdulmalik stressed that although courts are generally reluctant to interfere in the domestic affairs of political parties, they are empowered to intervene where constitutional or statutory violations are alleged.

She held that the tenure of the ADC state executive committees remained valid and must be allowed to run its full course without interference.

The court stressed that only those elected structures possessed the authority to organise state congresses and accordingly nullified any process initiated by the Senator David Mark-led caretaker leadership.

Earlier, the court dismissed a preliminary objection challenging its jurisdiction, holding that the subject matter concerned INEC’s affairs and therefore fell within the Federal High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.

The court also rejected the defendants’ contention that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust the parties’ internal dispute-resolution mechanisms before instituting the action.

It held that the plaintiffs had the requisite locus standi to institute the suit.

While affirming the restraining order, the Court of Appeal held that it had a duty to intervene to “prevent anarchy and ensure the survival of democracy in Nigeria.”

Relying on a recent Supreme Court judgment in the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) leadership dispute, Justice Abang held that once a complaint is anchored on a constitutional infraction, it ceases to be a mere internal affair of a political party.

“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,” Justice Abang held.

Consequently, the appellate court dismissed the appeal marked CA/ABJ/CV/608/2026 and awarded N10 million costs against the ADC in favour of the 1st to 7th respondents.

Shortly after the judgment, the ADC, represented by its National Welfare Secretary, Mr Nkem Ukandu, confirmed that it would challenge the verdict at the Supreme Court.