From Victor Osula, Abuja
The leadership crisis rocking the African Democratic Congress (ADC) deepened on Wednesday after the Federal High Court in Abuja barred the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising or participating in any congress organised by the party’s disputed caretaker leadership led by former Senate President, David Mark.
In a judgment delivered by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, the court also upheld the tenure of elected ADC state executive committees nationwide and restrained the Mark-led leadership from interfering with their functions or organising parallel congresses outside the provisions of the party’s constitution.
The ruling represents a major setback for the caretaker leadership and effectively places control of state party structures in the hands of the elected executives pending the conduct of valid congresses and a properly constituted national convention.
Justice Abdulmalik held that the ADC Caretaker/Interim National Working Committee lacks constitutional authority to appoint any congress committee for the purpose of conducting state congresses.
The court ruled that the power to conduct state congresses resides exclusively with the elected State Executive Committees and not with the national caretaker leadership.
“The issue in the originating summons is meritorious,” the judge declared while delivering judgment.
The suit was filed by Norman Obinna and six others on behalf of ADC state chairpersons and executive committees across the country challenging the legality of actions taken by the caretaker leadership.
The plaintiffs argued that the caretaker body acted outside the party’s constitution by constituting a congress committee to organise state congresses capable of replacing elected party officials.
According to them, the ADC constitution recognises only duly elected party organs as having authority to conduct congresses and manage party affairs at the state level.
They therefore urged the court to affirm the validity of the tenure of the state executives and restrain any parallel leadership arrangement capable of undermining their authority.
In resolving the dispute, Justice Abdulmalik identified the central issue as whether Mark and other defendants possessed constitutional or statutory authority to assume the powers of elected state organs whose tenure is guaranteed under the ADC constitution.
Relying on Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution and Article 23 of the ADC constitution, the judge held that political parties are bound to conduct their affairs in line with democratic principles and constitutional procedures.
She noted that Article 23 of the party’s constitution provides that national and state officers shall hold office for a maximum of two terms spanning eight years.
“The question is whether there is any infraction committed by Mr Mark and co-defendants when they convened meetings and appointed a body known as a congress committee to organise state congresses,” the judge stated.
Justice Abdulmalik held that the procedure adopted by the defendants, including the appointment of the congress committee, is unknown to the ADC constitution and therefore invalid.
She stressed that political parties cannot abandon their constitutions under the guise of internal autonomy.
Although acknowledging the settled legal principle that courts generally avoid interference in the internal affairs of political parties, the judge maintained that the court has a constitutional duty to intervene where breaches of constitutional or statutory provisions 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.
“Where a party alleges that its constitution has been violated, the court is bound to adjudicate. Any argument that this court lacks jurisdiction on that basis fails,” she ruled.
Consequently, the court set aside the appointment of the congress committee constituted by the caretaker leadership and restrained INEC from recognising any congress organised by the committee.
The court also restrained Mark and other defendants from organising congresses or conventions outside the provisions of the ADC constitution.
Additionally, they were barred from taking steps capable of undermining or disrupting the authority and tenure of the elected state executive committees.
Justice Abdulmalik further held that the four-year tenure of the ADC State Working Committees and State Executive Committees remains valid and subsisting pending the conduct of properly constituted congresses and a national convention conducted in line with the party’s constitution.
Earlier, the court dismissed preliminary objections raised by the defendants challenging the competence of the suit. The defendants had argued that the dispute related strictly to the internal affairs of the party and was therefore not justiciable.
They also contended that the plaintiffs lacked locus standi and failed to exhaust internal dispute resolution mechanisms before approaching the court.
However, the judge held that the matter substantially involved INEC and constitutional compliance, bringing it within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court under Section 251 of the Constitution.
On the issues of locus standi, the court ruled that the plaintiffs derived their legal standing from the alleged violations affecting their offices and tenure as elected party executives.
Justice Abdulmalik held that the plaintiffs shared a common grievance and were therefore entitled to institute the suit in a representative capacity.
The defendants in the matter include the ADC, David Mark, Patricia Akwashiki, Bolaji Abdullahi, Rauf Aregbesola, Oserheimen Osunbor, and INEC.
