The Court of Appeal in Abuja on Monday upheld the judgment restraining the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising state congresses organised by committees appointed by the David Mark-led caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).

A three-member panel of the appellate court, in a judgment delivered by Justice Okon Abang, said it found no reason to set aside the restraining order the Federal High Court in Abuja had issued against the Mark-led ADC on April 29.

It further upheld the order of Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, which restrained the Mark-led executives from interfering with the tenure and functions of the party’s elected state executives.

The court concurred that responsibility for conducting state congresses of political parties rests with elected state executive committees, not with the national leadership.

Justices Abang and Donatus Okorowo gave the majority verdict barring the electoral body from acknowledging the outcome of congresses held by the Mark-led leadership of the ADC.

The head of the appellate court’s panel, Justice Abba Mohammed, gave a dissenting judgment.

In his minority decision, Justice Mohammed held that the case that precipitated the restraining order bordered on a non-justiciable internal affair of a political party.

He held that the trial court was wrong to have assumed jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

This judgment may jeopardise the presidential candidacies of former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and other candidates who emerged through the national congress organised by the Mark-led faction of the ADC, ahead of the 2027 general elections.

The high court had, in its judgment, held that the four-year tenure of the ADC’s State Working Committees and State Executive Committees remained valid and subsisting, pending the conduct of properly constituted congresses and the convocation of a national convention.

The judgment followed a suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/581/2026, lodged before the court by aggrieved members of the ADC.

The suit was filed by Don Obinna, Johnny Derek, Obah C. Ehigiator, Olona Yinka, Charles Omideji, Samuel Gyang, and Obianyo Patrick, on behalf of all state chairmen and state executive committees of the ADC.

Listed as defendants are the ADC, Mr Mark, Patricia Akwashiki, Bolaji Abdullahi, Rauf Aregbesola, Oserheimen Osunbor, and INEC.

The plaintiffs challenged the Mark-led leadership of the ADC’s decision to constitute committees to conduct state congresses.

They challenged the validity of appointments made by the Mark-led caretaker committee.

They argued that planned state congresses slated for April 2026, if conducted under the supervision of the said caretaker committee, would constitute a gross violation of the party’s constitution.

It was further the position of the plaintiffs that only duly elected party organs recognised under the party’s constitution possess the power to conduct congresses.

The appellate court, while upholding the restraining order, said it had a duty to intervene so as to “prevent anarchy and ensure the survival of democracy in Nigeria.”

It cited a recent Supreme Court judgment in the leadership crisis rocking the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to hold that the ADC case could not be classified as a domestic affair of a political party.

“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 added in the majority judgment.

The panel consequently dismissed the appeal marked CA/ABJ/CV/608/2026, which the ADC lodged to set aside the high court judgment.

Justice Abdulmalik, on April 29, held that neither the 1999 Constitution, as amended, nor the constitution of the ADC empowered the caretaker/interim National Working Committee led by Mr Mark to appoint committees to conduct state congresses.

She held that the plaintiffs’ claims were valid and warranted judicial consideration, citing alleged breaches of constitutional and statutory provisions.

The judge also held that Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, requires political parties to hold periodic elections in accordance with democratic principles.

The court added that Article 23 of the ADC constitution also provides that national and state officers shall hold office for a maximum of two terms spanning eight years.

Justice Abdulmalik had stressed that although courts are generally reluctant to interfere in the domestic affairs of political parties, they nonetheless intervene where there is a clear allegation of violation of constitutional or statutory provisions.

(NAN)