The Federal High Court in Abuja has restrained the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising or participating in any congress organised by a disputed caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), in a ruling that could reshape the party’s internal power dynamics ahead of future political activities.
Delivering judgment on Wednesday, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik also barred former Senate President David Mark and other prominent figures from interfering with the tenure and functions of duly elected state executive committees of the party.
The decision marks a significant development in the protracted leadership crisis within the ADC, with implications for control of party structures nationwide.
The suit was instituted by Norman Obinna and six others, representing ADC state chairpersons and executive committees, who challenged the legality of actions taken by a caretaker or interim national leadership.
The plaintiffs specifically faulted the constitutionality of moves to organise state congresses through an appointed committee, arguing that such powers reside exclusively with duly elected party organs.
In her ruling, Justice Abdulmalik held that the claims were meritorious and warranted judicial intervention, particularly in light of alleged violations of constitutional and statutory provisions.
She framed the central issue as whether the defendants, including Mark, possessed the legal authority to assume the functions of elected state organs whose tenure is guaranteed under the party’s constitution.
Relying on Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution and relevant provisions of the ADC constitution, the court emphasised that political parties must operate on democratic principles and adhere strictly to their internal rules, including fixed tenures for party officials.
Addressing the defendants’ argument that the matter was an internal party affair beyond judicial scrutiny, the court clarified that while courts generally refrain from such disputes, they retain jurisdiction where constitutional breaches are alleged.
“The law is settled that courts will not interfere. However, where there is an allegation of breach of constitutional or statutory provisions, the court has a duty to intervene,” the judge held.
Justice Abdulmalik further ruled that the appointment of a “congress committee” by the caretaker leadership was not recognised under the ADC constitution and was therefore invalid.
Consequently, the court affirmed the subsisting tenure of the state executive committees and declared that only duly elected party structures have the authority to organise congresses.
In a series of consequential orders, the court nullified the appointment of the congress committee and restrained INEC from recognising any congress conducted under its authority.
The court also barred Mark and other defendants—including Patricia Akwashiki, Bolaji Abdullahi, Rauf Aregbesola, and Oserheimen Osunbor—from organising congresses or conventions outside the provisions of the party’s constitution or taking steps capable of undermining the authority of elected state executives.
The plaintiffs had urged the court to uphold internal party democracy, insisting that any attempt to bypass elected structures would erode the rule of law within the party.
However, the defendants had challenged the competence of the suit, arguing that the dispute was non-justiciable, that the plaintiffs lacked locus standi, and that internal dispute resolution mechanisms were not exhausted.
The ruling effectively dismisses those objections, reinforcing the principle that political parties must adhere to both their constitutions and Nigeria’s broader legal framework.
Source – thewatchnewspaper
(vitalnewsngr.com)
