Court stops INEC from recognising ADC congresses

… Nulifies Mark-led caretaker decisions

ABUJA — A Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday barred the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising or participating in any congress organised by a disputed caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).

In a decisive judgment, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik also restrained the Senator David Mark-led leadership of the ADC from interfering with the functions and tenure of duly elected state executives, reinforcing the authority of existing party structures.

Delivering the ruling, Justice Abdulmalik held that the responsibility for conducting state congresses lies strictly with state executive committees of the party, not the national executive committee or any interim body.

She affirmed that the four-year tenure of the ADC’s State Working Committees and State Executive Committees remains valid and subsisting pending the conduct of properly constituted congresses and the convocation of a national convention.

The court further ruled that neither the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria nor the ADC’s constitution empowers the party’s Caretaker/Interim National Working Committee, led by Mark, to appoint any committee for the purpose of conducting state congresses.

The suit was instituted by aggrieved state chairmen of the party, led by Norman Obinna and six others, who challenged the legality of actions taken by the caretaker national leadership.

In their originating summons, filed on behalf of ADC state chairpersons and executive committees, the plaintiffs argued that the caretaker body lacked constitutional authority to organise state congresses or appoint committees for that purpose, and sought judicial affirmation of their tenure while asking the court to halt any parallel processes.

Justice Abdulmalik, in her judgment, described the issues raised as “meritorious,” noting that the central question was whether the defendants, including Mark, possessed constitutional or statutory authority to assume the powers of elected state organs of the party whose tenure is guaranteed.

She cited Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution, which mandates political parties to conduct periodic elections on a democratic basis, alongside Article 23 of the ADC constitution, which stipulates that party officers shall hold office for a maximum of two terms spanning eight year

The judge queried whether any infraction occurred when the defendants convened meetings and appointed a “congress committee” to organise state congresses, concluding that such a procedure is not recognised by the party’s constitution.

On the argument that the matter concerned internal party affairs beyond judicial interference, Justice Abdulmalik held that while courts generally refrain from meddling in party matters, they are duty-bound to intervene where there is a breach of constitutional or statutory provisions.

“Any argument that this court lacks jurisdiction on that basis fails,” she ruled, adding that where a party alleges violation of its constitution, the court must adjudicate.

The court subsequently set aside the appointment of the congress committee and restrained INEC from recognising any congress conducted under its authority.

It also barred Mark and other defendants from organising congresses or conventions outside the provisions of the party’s constitution, as well as from taking steps capable of undermining the authority of state executive committees.

Earlier, the court dismissed preliminary objections filed by the defendants, ruling that the subject matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court under Section 251 of the Constitution.

On claims that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust internal dispute resolution mechanisms, the judge held that addressing such an issue at that stage would amount to determining substantive matters prematurely.

She also affirmed the plaintiffs’ locus standi, stating that their legal standing derived from the alleged violation and that their shared grievance justified the representative action.

Consequently, all objections were resolved in favour of the plaintiffs.

The defendants in the suit include the ADC, David Mark, Patricia Akwashiki, Malam Bolaji Abdullahi, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, Oserheimen Osunbor, and INEC.

While the plaintiffs maintained that the tenure of state executive committees remains valid until properly conducted congresses are held, the defendants had urged the court to dismiss the suit, arguing that it bordered on internal party affairs, was not justiciable, and that the plaintiffs lacked the legal standing to institute the action.