The Federal High Court in Abuja has issued an order restraining the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising or participating in any congresses organised by a disputed caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC). Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, who delivered the ruling, also barred former Senate President David Mark and other party figures from interfering with the functions and tenure of the party’s duly elected state executives.
Background of the Suit
The case originated from an originating summons filed by Norman Obinna and six others, acting on behalf of the ADC state chairpersons and executive committees. The plaintiffs challenged the legality of actions taken by a caretaker or interim national leadership of the party, arguing that the caretaker body lacked constitutional authority to organise state congresses or appoint committees for that purpose. They sought a court declaration affirming their tenure and an order stopping any parallel processes.
Justice Abdulmalik's Findings
In her judgment, Justice Abdulmalik stated that she found “the issue in the originating summons meritorious.” She identified the core question as whether the second to sixth defendants, including David Mark, had constitutional or statutory authority to assume the powers of an elected state organ of the ADC, whose tenure is constitutionally guaranteed. She cited Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution, which mandates political parties to conduct periodic elections on a democratic basis, and Article 23 of the ADC’s constitution, which provides that national and state officers shall hold office for a maximum of two terms of eight years.
The judge further questioned whether any infraction was committed when Mark and co-defendants convened meetings and appointed a body known as a “congress committee” to organise state congresses. On the issue of internal affairs of political parties, she acknowledged that courts generally do not interfere, but noted that “where there is an allegation of breach of constitutional or statutory provisions, the court has a duty to intervene.” She emphasised that political parties must comply strictly with their constitutions, and that courts can intervene where breaches occur.
Ruling on the Committee
Justice Abdulmalik found that the procedure adopted by the defendants, including the appointment of a “congress committee,” is not recognised by the ADC’s constitution. She ruled that the tenure of state executive committees remains valid and must be allowed to run its course, and that only those elected structures have the authority to organise state congresses. Consequently, the court set aside the appointment of the committee and restrained INEC from recognising any congress organised by it. The court also restrained Mark and other defendants from organising congresses or conventions outside the provisions of the party’s constitution, and from taking steps that could undermine or disrupt the authority of the state executive committees.
Preliminary Objections
The court also addressed preliminary objections and counter affidavits filed by the defendants. On jurisdiction, Justice Abdulmalik held that the subject matter of the plaintiffs’ action pertains to the affairs of INEC, thereby falling within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court under Section 251 of the Constitution. Regarding the argument that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust internal dispute resolution mechanisms, the judge declined to uphold the objection at that stage, stating that determining that 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 share a common grievance, making the representative action proper. She concluded that the objections lacked merit and were resolved in favour of the plaintiffs.
