The Court of Appeal in Abuja on Monday upheld a Federal High Court judgment restraining the Independent National Electoral Commission from recognising or participating in state congresses conducted by committees appointed by the Senator David Mark-led caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress.
In a two-to-one majority decision, the appellate court dismissed the appeal marked CA/ABJ/CV/608/2026, affirming the April 29 judgment of Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, which barred the caretaker leadership from interfering with the tenure and functions of the party’s elected state executive committees.
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Okon Abang held that there was no basis to set aside the lower court’s decision, stressing that the authority to conduct state congresses rests with elected state executive committees and not a caretaker national leadership.
Justice Donatus Okorowo concurred with the lead judgment, while the presiding Justice of the panel, Justice Abba Mohammed, dissented.
Justice Mohammed held that the dispute bordered on the internal affairs of a political party and was therefore non-justiciable, adding that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
The majority, however, held that the matter involved constitutional questions warranting judicial intervention.
Justice Abang held that once a complaint is founded on alleged constitutional infractions, the defence that the matter is an internal party affair no longer applies.
He said, “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.”
The appellate court added that intervention was necessary to “prevent anarchy and ensure the survival of democracy in Nigeria.”
Relying on a recent Supreme Court judgment arising from the leadership crisis in the Peoples Democratic Party, the court held that the ADC dispute could not be classified as a mere domestic affair of a political party.
It also ruled that the congresses and national convention conducted by the Mark-led caretaker committee were nullities, having been held in defiance of a subsisting order issued by the Federal High Court on April 14.
The court consequently awarded N10m costs against the ADC.
In his dissenting judgment however, Justice Mohammed disagreed with the decision that the trial court had jurisdiction to hear the case.
He upheld the appellants’ challenge to the jurisdiction of the trial court, noting that the court had no business interfering and in political decisions.
He further added that the function of the state executive committees were only to prepare the agenda for the state congresses, rather than conduct the congresses, adding that the action of the 1st to 7th respondents was immature.
The judgment arose from suit FHC/ABJ/CS/581/2026, instituted by Don Norman Obinna, Johnny Tovie Derek, Obah C. Ehigiator, Hon. Olona Yinka, Dr Charles Idowu Omideji, Samuel Pam Gyang and Obianyo Patrick on behalf of themselves and all ADC state chairmen and state executive committees.
The plaintiffs challenged the decision of the caretaker committee to appoint committees to conduct state congresses, arguing that the move violated both the party’s constitution and the 1999 Constitution.
They maintained that only duly elected party organs have the constitutional authority to organise state congresses.
The defendants were the ADC; Senator David Mark; Senator Patricia Akwashiki; Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi; Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola; Prof. Oserheimen Osunbor, sued on behalf of the Caretaker/Interim National Working Committee; and INEC.
In the judgment affirmed by the appellate court, Justice Abdulmalik held that neither the 1999 Constitution nor the ADC Constitution empowered the caretaker committee to appoint committees for the conduct of state congresses.
She ruled that the tenure of the party’s State Working Committees and State Executive Committees remained valid and subsisting pending properly conducted congresses and a national convention in line with the party’s constitution.
The judge held that although courts generally refrain from interfering in the internal affairs of political parties, they will intervene where constitutional or statutory violations are alleged.