Appeal Court Affirms Judgment Barring INEC From Recognising ADC State Congresses
The Court of Appeal has upheld the lower court’s judgement, which stops the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising or taking part in any state congresses organised by...
The Court of Appeal has upheld the lower court’s judgement, which stops the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising or taking part in any state congresses organised by the faction of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) led by former Senate President David Mark.
The appellate court, in a split decision of two to one, ruled Monday to uphold the judgement delivered by Justice Joyce Abdumalik of the Federal High Court in Abuja on April 29th, 2026. The Court of Appeal also imposed a fine of N10m on the David Mark-led faction of the party to be paid to the State Chairmen of the party for violating the party’s constitution and scuttling its four-year tenure.
The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/581/2026, was first filed in the High Court by some aggrieved members of the party, including Don Norman Obinna, Johnny Tovie Derek, Obah Ehigiator, Olona Yinka, Charles Omideji, Samuel Pam Gyang, and Obianyo Patrick, who were suing for themselves and on behalf of all state chairmen and state executive committees of the ADC.
They named the ADC, Sen. David Mark, Sen. Patricia Akwashiki, Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, and Prof. Oserheimen Osunbor (sued on behalf of the Caretaker/Interim National Working Committee) as defendants in the suit, as well as INEC.
In their prayers to the court, they asked the court to determine whether the 2nd and 6th defendants, including Mark, had constitutional or statutory authority to take on the powers of an elected state organ of the ADC, whose tenure is constitutionally guaranteed. They also asked the court to affirm their tenure and stop the parallel process the interim government was instigating.
Additionally, they contested the legitimacy of the appointments made by the Mark-led caretaker committee, claiming that holding state congresses under its supervision in April 2026 would be a flagrant violation of the party’s constitution. The plaintiffs also maintained that only duly elected party organs recognised by the party’s constitution could hold congresses.
In their defence, the defendants insisted that the matter was bordering on the internal affairs of the party and that the court should not intervene in it.
However, Justice Abdulmalik ruled in favour of the plaintiffs, citing that section 223 of the 1999 Constitution provides that political parties shall conduct periodic elections on a democratic basis, while article 23 of the party’s constitution provides that national and state officers shall hold office for a maximum of two terms of eight years.
Justice Abdulmalik went on to say that neither the 1999 Constitution, as amended, nor the ADC Constitution empowered the caretaker/interim National Working Committee, led by Senator Mark, to appoint committees to conduct state congresses. The court also ruled that the plaintiffs’ claims were valid and deserving of judicial consideration, citing alleged violations of constitutional and statutory provisions.
Addressing the interference in the domestic affairs of political parties, the High Court ruled that while courts are generally reluctant to interfere in the domestic affairs of political parties, they nonetheless intervene where there is a clear allegation of a violation of constitutional or statutory provisions.
She held that evidence before the court established that the tenure of the state executive committees of the ADC remained valid and must be allowed to run its full course without interference.
Not satisfied with the judgement of the lower court, the David Mark-led faction of the ADC, comprising the ADC, David Mark himself and Engineer Rauf Aregbesola, approached the appeal court to challenge the decision of Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court, which stopped them from cutting short the four-year tenure of the state officers of the party.
However, the appellate court, in a majority decision delivered by Justices Okon Abang and Donatus Okorowo, held that the Federal High Court was correct in assuming jurisdiction in the case of the state chairmen because it was a violation of the ADC Constitution to remove the chairmen from office while their tenure had not expired.
They concluded that the appellants’ claim of internal affairs in their opposition to the state chairmen’s case could not stand because section 223 of the 1999 Constitution and the party’s Constitution were violated.
They contend that permitting the appellants to violate their party’s constitution would result in chaos and have the potential to undermine democracy.
However, the Presiding Justice, Abba Bello Mohammed, dissented, arguing that the party’s internal affairs are the only ones that should be addressed when it comes to the election and removal of officers.
According to Justice Mohammed, the APC Constitution does not grant the State Working Committee the sole authority to form a Congress Committee in order to elect officers for the State Executive Committee (SEC).
In addition, Justice Mohammed ruled that, except for the first respondent, the six other respondents failed to reveal their status and interest, which would grant them locus standi to file the lawsuit in the Federal High Court.
He claimed that because six of the seven respondents did not claim to be state chairmen and did not disclose their states, the claim to act on behalf of state chairmen has fallen apart. According to Justice Mohammed, the respondents’ excessive anxiety stemmed from the failure to activate internal dispute machinery before their hasty court appearance.
No Comment! Be the first one.