On Wednesday, the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court barred the Independent National Electoral Commission from recognising or participating in any congress organised by a disputed caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress.

Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, in a judgment, also restrained David Mark-led leadership of the ADC from interfering with the functions and tenure of elected state executives.

Ms Abdulmalik held that the duty of conducting state congresses resides with state executive committees of the party and not the national executive committee.

The judge held 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 state congresses and the convocation of a national convention

She further held that the country’s constitution and the ADC’s constitution do not empower the party’s Caretaker/Interim National Working Committee, led by Mr Mark, to appoint any congress committee for the purpose of conducting state congresses.

Some aggrieved state chairmen of ADC had filed the suit to challenge the David Mark faction of the party.

In the originating summons filed by Norman Obinna and six others on behalf of ADC state chairpersons and executive committees, they challenged the legality of actions taken by a caretaker or interim national leadership.

The plaintiffs argued that the caretaker body lacked the constitutional authority to organise state congresses or appoint committees for that purpose.

They asked the court to affirm their tenure and stop any parallel process.

In her judgement, Ms Abdulmalik said she found “the issue in the originating summons meritorious”.

She said the germane issue was whether the second and sixth defendants, including Mr Mark, had constitutional or statutory authority to assume the powers of an elected state organ of the ADC, whose tenure is constitutionally guaranteed.

According to her, Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution provides that political parties shall conduct periodic elections on a democratic basis, while article 23 of the party’s constitution provides that national and state officers shall hold office for a maximum of two terms of eight years.

The judge said, “The question is whether there was any infraction committed by Mr Mark and co-defendants when they convened meetings and appointed a body known as a congress committee to organise state congresses.”

Regarding the internal affairs of political parties raised by the defendants, the judge said, “The law is settled: courts will not interfere. However, where there is an allegation of breach of constitutional or statutory provisions, the court has a duty to intervene.”

According to her, 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,” the judge ruled.

The judge stated that political parties must comply strictly with their constitutions and that courts can intervene where there is a breach of constitutional or statutory provisions.

She found that the procedure adopted by the defendants, including the appointment of a “congress committee”, is not recognised by the party’s constitution.

The judge ruled that the tenure of state executive committees remains valid and must be allowed to run its course. She said only those elected structures have the authority to organise state congresses.

Ms Abdulmalik then set aside the appointment of the committee and restrained INEC from recognising any congress organised by it.

She also restrained Mr Mark and other defendants from organising congresses or conventions outside the provisions of the party’s constitution.

The judge further restrained them from taking steps that could undermine or disrupt the authority of the state executive committees.

Earlier, Ms Abdulmalik delivered a ruling on the preliminary objections and counter-affidavits filed by the defendants.

The judge held that “the subject matter of the plaintiffs’ action pertains to the affairs of INEC” and therefore falls within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court under Section 251 of the Constitution.

On the argument that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust internal dispute resolution mechanisms, the judge declined to uphold the objection.

She held that determining the issue would amount to deciding substantive questions prematurely.

On locus standi, she held that “the plaintiffs’ locus standi and capacity emanate from the alleged violation” and that they shared a common grievance, making the representative action proper.

Consequently, the judge held that the objections lacked merit and were resolved in favour of the plaintiffs.

The defendants included the ADC, David Mark, Patricia Akwashiki, Bolaji Abdullahi, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, Oserheimen Osunbor, and INEC.

The plaintiffs had challenged the legality of the caretaker or interim national working committees and urged the court to restrain INEC from recognising or participating in any congress organised by the caretaker committee.

The plaintiffs contended that, under the party’s constitution and the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the tenure of state executive committees subsists until valid congresses are conducted and that any attempt to bypass them undermines internal party democracy.

However, the defendants, in their preliminary objections, counter-affidavits and written addresses, urged the court to dismiss the suit.

Mr Mark and others argued that the matter related to the internal affairs of a political party and that it was not justiciable.

They submitted that the plaintiffs lacked locus standi and that the suit was incompetent.

(NAN)