A Federal High Court in Abuja has restrained the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising or participating in any state congress organised by a disputed leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
Gatekeepers News reports that delivering judgment, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik also barred former Senate President David Mark and other party figures from interfering with the functions and tenure of duly elected state executives.
The ruling followed an originating summons filed by Norman Obinna and six others on behalf of ADC state chairpersons and executive committees. The plaintiffs challenged the legality of actions taken by an interim national leadership, arguing that it lacked the constitutional authority to organise state congresses or appoint committees for that purpose.
They urged the court to affirm their tenure and halt any parallel congress process.
‘Issue Meritorious’
In her judgment, Justice Abdulmalik held that she found “the issue in the originating summons meritorious,” noting that the key question was whether the defendants had the constitutional or statutory authority to assume the powers of elected state organs of the party.
She referenced Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution, which mandates political parties to conduct periodic democratic elections, as well as provisions of the ADC constitution limiting the tenure of party officers.
“The question is whether there is any infraction committed by Mark and co-defendants when they convened meetings and appointed a body known as a congress committee to organise state congresses,” she said.
Addressing the defendants’ argument that the matter concerned internal party affairs, the judge clarified the limits of judicial restraint.
“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.
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.”
‘Parties Must Comply With Their Constitutions’
The court held that political parties must strictly adhere to their constitutions and that any deviation warrants judicial intervention.
Justice Abdulmalik found that the process adopted by the defendants—including the appointment of a “congress committee”—was not recognised under the ADC constitution.
She ruled that the tenure of the state executive committees remains valid and must be allowed to run its course, stressing that only duly elected party structures have the authority to organise state congresses.
Consequently, the court set aside the appointment of the committee and restrained INEC from recognising any congress conducted by it. Mark and other defendants were also barred from organising congresses or conventions outside the provisions of the party’s constitution or taking actions that could undermine the authority of state executives.
Jurisdiction and Objections
The plaintiffs, led by Obinna, instituted the suit on behalf of ADC state chairmen and executive committees. Defendants in the case include the ADC, Mark, Patricia Akwashiki, Bolaji Abdullahi, Rauf Aregbesola, Oserheimen Osunbor, and INEC.
They challenged the legality of caretaker or interim national working committees, arguing that under both the party’s constitution and the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the tenure of state executives subsists until valid congresses are conducted.
The defendants, however, urged the court to dismiss the suit, contending that the matter was an internal party issue, not justiciable, and that the plaintiffs lacked locus standi.
Ruling on these objections, Justice Abdulmalik held that the case falls within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, as it concerns the functions of INEC under Section 251 of the Constitution.
She also dismissed arguments regarding failure to exhaust internal dispute resolution mechanisms, stating that addressing such issues at that stage would amount to deciding substantive matters prematurely.
On locus standi, the court held:
“The plaintiffs’ locus standi and capacity emanate from the alleged violation,” adding that their shared grievance makes the representative action proper.
The court ultimately resolved all objections in favour of the plaintiffs.
