From Victor Osula, Abuja
The Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja on Monday cancelled the congresses held by Senator David Mark-led leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), affirming a Federal High Court judgment that nullified the party’s state congresses. It barred the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising their outcome.
The split two-to-one judgment has also thrown fresh uncertainty over the validity of the ADC’s national convention and the emergence of candidates through the processes, including the 2027 presidential bid of former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and other aspirants aligned with the Mark-led faction.
In the lead judgment, Justice Okon Abang, whose decision was supported by Justice Donatus Okorowo, held that there was no basis to disturb the April 29 judgment of the Federal High Court delivered by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik.
The appellate court upheld the lower court’s order restraining INEC from recognising or participating in any state congresses organised by committees constituted by the David Mark-led caretaker leadership of the ADC.
It also affirmed the order restraining the interim executives from interfering with the tenure and constitutional responsibilities of the party’s duly elected State Working Committees and State Executive Committees.
The majority held that under the ADC Constitution, the authority to organise state congresses resides exclusively with elected state executive committees and not with a caretaker or interim national leadership.
Justice Abba Mohammed, who presided over the three-member panel, however, dissented from the majority decision. In his minority judgment, he held that the dispute related to the internal affairs of a political party and was therefore not justiciable.
According to him, the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
The appellate Court further held that the congresses and national convention organised by the David Mark-led caretaker leadership were conducted in disobedience to a subsisting order of the Federal High Court issued on April 14 and were therefore null and void.
Justice Abang held that while courts ordinarily avoid interfering in the domestic affairs of political parties, judicial intervention becomes necessary where constitutional or statutory breaches are established.
“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 held.
The court added that intervention in the matter was necessary to “prevent anarchy and ensure the survival of democracy in Nigeria.”
In arriving at its decision, the appellate court relied on a recent Supreme Court judgment arising from the leadership crisis in the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), holding that the ADC dispute could not be treated as a mere internal party affair because it involved alleged constitutional violations.
Consequently, the appellate panel dismissed the appeal marked CA/ABJ/CV/608/2026, filed by the ADC, and awarded N10 million costs against the party.
The dispute originated from Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/581/2026, instituted before the Federal High Court by Don Norman Obinna, Johnny Tovie Derek, Obah C. Ehigiator, Hon. Olona Yinka, Dr. Charles Idowu Omideji, Samuel Pam Gyang, and Obianyo Patrick.
The plaintiffs sued for themselves and on behalf of all ADC State Chairmen and State Executive Committees.
Named as defendants were the ADC, Senator David Mark, Senator Patricia Akwashiki, Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, Prof. Oserheimen Osunbor—who were sued on behalf of the Caretaker/Interim National Working Committee—and INEC.
The plaintiffs challenged the legality of committees appointed by the caretaker leadership to conduct state congresses, arguing that the appointments violated both the 1999 Constitution and the ADC Constitution.
They maintained that only duly elected party organs recognised under the party’s constitution possess the authority to organise congresses and elect state executives.
In her judgment, Justice Abdulmalik agreed with the plaintiffs, holding that neither the 1999 Constitution nor the ADC Constitution empowered the David Mark-led caretaker committee to appoint committees for the purpose of conducting state congresses.
She held that the tenure of the ADC’s State Working Committees and State Executive Committees remained valid and subsisting until properly constituted congresses and a national convention are conducted in accordance with the party’s constitution.
The trial judge further ruled that Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution mandates political parties to conduct periodic elections based on democratic principles, while Article 23 of the ADC Constitution provides for the tenure of party officials.
Justice Abdulmalik also dismissed preliminary objections challenging the competence of the suit, holding that the matter involved INEC and constitutional questions, thereby bringing it within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court under Section 251 of the Constitution.
She further held that the plaintiffs had the requisite locus standi to institute the action and were not required to exhaust internal dispute resolution mechanisms before approaching the court.
Following Monday’s judgment, the legal status of the ADC congresses, national convention, and candidates produced by the David Mark-led caretaker leadership remains under a cloud, with potential implications for the party’s preparations for the 2027 general elections.
Reacting shortly after the judgment, the ADC, through its National Welfare Secretary, Nkem Ukandu, rejected the verdict and announced that the party would challenge the Court of Appeal’s decision at the Supreme Court.
