The Court of Appeal in Abuja has, in a split 2-1 majority decision, upheld a Federal High Court judgment restraining the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising or participating in any state congresses organised by committees appointed by the David Mark-led caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
In the lead judgment delivered by Justice Okon Abang, the three-member panel held that there was no basis to set aside the restraining order issued by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court, Abuja, on April 29, 2026.
The appellate court also affirmed the lower court’s order restraining the Mark-led caretaker executives from interfering with the tenure and functions of the party’s duly elected state executive committees.
The majority held that, under the ADC constitution, the responsibility for conducting state congresses rests with elected state executive committees and not with the party’s national caretaker leadership.
Justices Okon Abang and Donatus Okorowo delivered the majority judgment, while the presiding Justice, Abba Mohammed, dissented.
In his minority judgment, Justice Mohammed held that the dispute concerned the internal affairs of a political party, which are generally non-justiciable, and argued that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
High Court decision affirmed
The Federal High Court had earlier ruled that the four-year tenure of the ADC’s State Working Committees and State Executive Committees remained valid until properly constituted state congresses and a national convention are held.
The suit was instituted by aggrieved party members — Don Norman Obinna, Johnny Tovie Derek, Obah C. Ehigiator, Olona Yinka, Charles Idowu Omideji, Samuel Pam Gyang and Obianyo Patrick — who said they sued on behalf of all ADC state chairmen and state executive committees.
The defendants included the ADC, David Mark, Patricia Akwashiki, Bolaji Abdullahi, Rauf Aregbesola, Oserheimen Osunbor (sued on behalf of the caretaker/interim National Working Committee), and INEC.
The plaintiffs challenged the caretaker committee’s decision to appoint committees to conduct state congresses, arguing that only duly elected party organs recognised under the ADC constitution possess such powers.
They further contended that any congress conducted under the supervision of the caretaker committee would violate the party’s constitution.
Agreeing with the plaintiffs, Justice Abdulmalik held that neither the 1999 Constitution nor the ADC constitution empowered the caretaker National Working Committee led by Senator Mark to constitute committees for state congresses.
She ruled that the plaintiffs had established constitutional and statutory breaches warranting judicial intervention.
The court noted that Section 223 of the Constitution requires political parties to operate democratically through periodic elections, while Article 23 of the ADC Constitution limits the tenure of national and state officers to a maximum of two terms spanning eight years.
Although courts generally avoid interfering in the internal affairs of political parties, Justice Abdulmalik held that intervention becomes necessary where constitutional or statutory violations are alleged.
She therefore declared that the elected state executive committees remained the only recognised party organs with the authority to organise state congresses and nullified any contrary process initiated by the Mark-led caretaker leadership.
The court also dismissed preliminary objections challenging its jurisdiction, holding that the involvement of INEC brought the matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court under Section 251 of the Constitution.
It further held that the plaintiffs had the requisite legal standing to institute the suit.
Appeal dismissed
In affirming the lower court’s judgment, the Court of Appeal held that judicial intervention was necessary to prevent constitutional violations and safeguard democratic principles.
“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 in the majority judgment.
The appellate court also relied on a recent Supreme Court decision in the leadership dispute within the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to conclude that the case could not be treated as a mere internal party affair.
Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal marked CA/ABJ/CV/608/2026, holding that the congresses and national convention conducted by the Mark-led caretaker leadership were null and void because they were held in defiance of a subsisting court order issued on April 14, 2026.
The court also awarded ₦10 million in costs against the ADC.
