The Court of Appeal, Abuja, has affirmed the judgment restraining the Independent National Electoral Commission 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 a lead verdict delivered by Justice Okon Abang, a three-member panel of Justices said it found no reason to set aside the restraining order the Federal High Court, Abuja, had issued against the Mark-led ADC on April 29.
It further upheld the order of trial Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, which restrained the Mark-led executives from interfering with the tenure and functions of the party’s elected state executives.
The appellate court concurred that responsibility for conducting state congresses of political parties rests with elected state executive committees, not with the national leadership.
While 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.
The Federal 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 lodged before the court by aggrieved members of the ADC.
Those behind the suit are Don Norman Obinna, Johnny Tovie Derek, Obah C. Ehigiator, Olona Yinka, Charles Idowu Omideji, Samuel Pam Gyang, and Obianyo Patrick, who told the court that they sued for themselves and on behalf of all state chairmen and state executive committees of the ADC.
Listed as defendants in the matter are the ADC, Mark and Patricia Akwashiki; Bolaji Abdullahi, Rauf Aregbesola, and Oserheimen Osunbor (sued on behalf of the Caretaker/Interim National Working Committee); and INEC.
The plaintiffs had, among other things, challenged the decision of the Senator Mark-led leadership of the ADC to constitute committees for the purpose of conducting state congresses.
They challenged the validity of appointments made by the Mark-led caretaker committee, arguing 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.
While agreeing with the plaintiffs, Justice Abdulmalik held that neither the 1999 Constitution, as amended, nor the Constitution of the ADC empowered the caretaker/interim National Working Committee led by Senator Mark to appoint committees for the purpose of conducting state congresses.
The court held that the claims brought before it by the plaintiffs were valid and deserving of judicial consideration, citing an alleged breach of constitutional and statutory provisions.
It held that Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, mandates political parties to conduct periodic elections based on democratic principles, adding 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 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.
She held that evidence before the court established that the tenure of the state executive committees of the ADC remained valid and must be allowed to run its full course without interference.
The court stressed that only those elected structures have the authority to organise state congresses, and it accordingly nullified any process initiated by the Senator Mark-led caretaker leadership.
