Trouble For ADC, Atiku As Court Bars INEC From Recognising Congresses

The Court of Appeal in Abuja has upheld an order restraining the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising or participating in state congresses organised by committees appointed by the Senator David Mark-led caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).

In a split decision delivered on Monday, two members of the three-man panel affirmed the April 29 judgment of the Federal High Court in Abuja, while one justice dissented.

Naija News reports that Justice Okon Abang, who delivered the majority judgment, said the appellate court found no valid reason to overturn the restraining order earlier issued by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik.

The court also affirmed the order preventing the Mark-led national leadership from interfering with the tenure and functions of the ADC’s elected state executive committees.

Justices Abang and Donatus Okorowo formed the majority that barred INEC from recognising the outcome of congresses conducted by the caretaker leadership.

They agreed with the trial court that the responsibility for organising state congresses rested with duly elected state executive committees rather than the party’s national caretaker body.

The presiding justice, Abba Mohammed, however, delivered a dissenting judgment.

Mohammed held that the dispute arose from the internal affairs of a political party and was, therefore, not open to judicial determination.

He consequently ruled that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the case.

National Convention Declared Invalid

The majority judgment held that the congresses and national convention conducted by the Mark-led ADC were invalid because they took place in defiance of an existing court order issued on April 14.

The court dismissed the party’s appeal, marked CA/ABJ/CV/608/2026, which sought to overturn the Federal High Court’s decision.

Justice Abang said the judiciary had a responsibility to intervene to “prevent anarchy and ensure the survival of democracy in Nigeria.”

Referring to a recent Supreme Court decision concerning the leadership crisis in the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), he held that the ADC dispute could not be treated solely as an internal party matter.

“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,” Abang said.

The appellate court also awarded ₦10 million in costs against the ADC.

Judgment May Affect Presidential Ticket

The decision could create uncertainty over the candidacies of former Vice President, Atiku Abubakar, and others who reportedly emerged from the national convention conducted by the Mark-led faction ahead of the 2027 general election.

The court’s finding that the convention amounted to a nullity may raise questions about nominations and other decisions taken at the gathering.

However, the ultimate effect of the judgment on the party’s candidates may depend on further judicial proceedings and the position eventually taken by INEC.

The Federal High Court had held that the four-year tenure of the ADC’s State Working Committees and State Executive Committees remained valid until properly constituted congresses and a national convention were conducted.

The judgment arose from a suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/581/2026, filed by seven aggrieved members of the party on behalf of state chairmen and executive committees nationwide.

The plaintiffs were Don Norman Obinna, Johnny Tovie Derek, Obah C. Ehigiator, Olona Yinka, Dr Charles Idowu Omideji, Samuel Pam Gyang and Obianyo Patrick.

They listed the ADC, Mark, Senator Patricia Akwashiki, Bolaji Abdullahi, Rauf Aregbesola, Prof. Oserheimen Osunbor and INEC as defendants.

Plaintiffs Challenged Caretaker Committees

The plaintiffs challenged the decision of the Mark-led leadership to appoint committees to conduct state congresses scheduled for April 2026.

They argued that allowing the caretaker committee to supervise the congresses would violate the ADC constitution.

According to them, only duly elected organs recognised by the party’s constitution had the authority to organise congresses.

Justice Abdulmalik agreed with the plaintiffs, ruling that neither the 1999 Constitution nor the ADC Constitution empowered the caretaker National Working Committee to appoint committees for state congresses.

She held that the evidence before the court showed that the tenure of the existing state executive committees remained valid and should be allowed to run without interference.

The trial court had earlier rejected a preliminary objection filed by the defendants, who argued that the suit was incompetent and concerned an internal party dispute.

Justice Abdulmalik held that the case involved INEC and alleged violations of constitutional and statutory provisions, bringing it within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court under Section 251 of the Constitution.

She also dismissed the argument that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust internal dispute-resolution procedures before approaching the court.

The judge ruled that the plaintiffs possessed the legal standing to institute the action.

She relied on Section 223 of the Constitution, which requires political parties to hold periodic elections democratically, and on Article 23 of the ADC constitution regarding the tenure of national and state officers.

Reacting after Monday’s judgment, the ADC said it would challenge the decision at the Supreme Court.

The party was represented in court by its National Welfare Secretary, Nkem Ukandu.

The planned appeal means the legal battle over control of the ADC and the validity of its congresses and national convention is expected to continue at the apex court.