Appeal Court Upholds Restraining Order Against ADC Caretaker Leadership
The Court of Appeal in Abuja has, by a majority decision, upheld a judgement 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). The ruling, delivered on Monday, reinforces an earlier Federal High Court order that barred the Mark-led faction from interfering with the tenure and functions of the party's elected state executives.
Majority Verdict and Dissenting Opinion
In a 2-1 judgement delivered by a three-member panel, Justices Okon Abang and Donatus Okorowo ruled in favour of the plaintiffs, while the head of the panel, Justice Abba Mohammed, dissented. Justice Abang, who read the majority judgement, held that the appellate court found no reason to set aside the restraining order issued by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court in Abuja on 29 April. The court concurred that the responsibility for conducting state congresses of political parties rests with elected state executive committees, not with the national leadership.
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Mohammed argued 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.
Background of the Case
The judgement followed a suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/581/2026, filed by aggrieved members of the ADC, including Don Obinna, Johnny Derek, Obah Ehigiator, Olona Yinka, Charles Omideji, Samuel Gyang, and Obianyo Patrick, on behalf of all state chairpersons and State Executive Committees of the ADC. The defendants were the ADC; David Mark; Patricia Akwashiki; Bolaji Abdullahi; interim national secretary, Rauf Aregbesola; Oserheimen Osunbor; and INEC.
The plaintiffs challenged the decision by the Mark-led leadership to constitute committees to conduct state congresses, arguing that it violated the party's constitution. They contended that only duly elected party organs recognised under the party's constitution possess the power to conduct congresses. The planned state congresses, slated for April 2026, would have been a gross violation of the party's constitution if conducted under the supervision of the caretaker committee, they argued.
Court's Rationale for Intervention
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 in order to set aside the high court judgment.
Implications for 2027 Elections
This judgement 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 Federal High Court had earlier 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.
Previous High Court Ruling
Justice Abdulmalik, in her 29 April ruling, held that neither the 1999 Constitution, as amended, nor the Constitution of the ADC empowered the caretaker/interim National Working Committee led by Mark to appoint committees for the purpose of conducting state congresses. She held that the claims brought before it by the plaintiffs were valid and deserving of judicial consideration, citing alleged breach of constitutional and statutory provisions.
The judge also held that Section 223 of the Nigerian Constitution mandates political parties to conduct periodic elections based on democratic principles. The court added that Article 23 of the ADC constitution 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 intervene where there is a clear allegation of violation of constitutional or statutory provisions.
