Court should stay away from party leadership – ADC founder Nwosu

Founder and former African Democratic Congress National Chairman Ralph Nwosu has warned that courts should not decide who leads political parties, saying such matters should remain within the control of party members.

Nwosu spoke after the Court of Appeal in Abuja upheld a Federal High Court order stopping the Independent National Electoral Commission from recognising congresses organised by committees appointed by the David Mark led leadership of the ADC.

The appellate court ruled that the congresses and national convention held under the David Mark leadership were invalid because they went ahead despite an existing court order. The ADC has announced plans to appeal the decision at the Supreme Court, arguing that the ruling only affects its congresses and does not affect the direct primaries that produced its candidates for the 2027 general election.

Speaking on ARISE News on Tuesday, Nwosu insisted that the judiciary should not interfere in the internal matters of political parties and maintained that the ADC national leadership remains legitimate.

He argued that repeated Supreme Court decisions had shown that party leadership disputes should not be decided by courts, warning that allowing judges to determine party leadership could weaken democracy.

Nwosu said the situation had become political interference, accusing some politicians of trying to use legal battles to control party structures.

He also defended the process that produced the ADC’s current National Working Committee, saying a competent court had already confirmed the election of David Mark and the present NWC.

According to him, the leadership remains valid unless another court overturns that decision, adding that the party is operating according to its constitution and INEC guidelines.

Nwosu stressed that the Court of Appeal judgement focused only on the party’s congresses and did not affect the ADC leadership or the process that produced its candidates.

He maintained that the ruling was about the disputed congresses, not the party’s national leadership or its primary elections.