A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has restrained the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising or participating in any state congresses organised by committees constituted by the caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), in a ruling that has significant implications for the party’s internal structure and political activities ahead of future elections.
In a detailed judgment delivered by Justice Abdulmalik, the court held that the responsibility for conducting state congresses rests squarely with the party’s recognised state executive organs, not with any interim or caretaker leadership at the national level. The ruling reaffirmed the authority of the ADC’s State Working Committees and State Executive Committees, declaring that their mandates remain valid and legally binding.
According to the court, these state structures were duly constituted and are entitled to complete their four-year tenure unless replaced through properly conducted congresses in line with the party’s constitution. The judge emphasised that any attempt to sideline or override these bodies without following due process would be unconstitutional and legally untenable.
The court further ruled that the caretaker or interim National Working Committee of the ADC, led by David Mark, lacks the legal authority to establish committees for the purpose of organising state congresses. Justice Abdulmalik stated unequivocally that neither the Nigerian Constitution nor the internal constitution of the ADC grants such powers to an interim leadership arrangement.
“The conduct of state congresses is the exclusive responsibility of the party’s state executive structures,” the court held, adding that any deviation from this provision undermines internal democracy and violates established party guidelines.
The case arose from a suit filed by a group of party stakeholders, including Don Norman Obinna, Johnny Tovie Derek, Obah C. Ehigiator, Hon. Olona Yinka, Dr. Charles Idowu Omideji, Samuel Pam Gyang, and Obianyo Patrick. The plaintiffs approached the court on behalf of themselves and other state-level party leaders across Nigeria, seeking judicial clarification on the powers of the caretaker leadership.
In their argument, the plaintiffs contended that the actions of the caretaker committee, particularly the appointment of congress committees, were outside the scope of its authority. They maintained that such actions contravened the ADC’s constitution and threatened the integrity of the party’s internal processes.
They also challenged the planned state congresses scheduled for April 2026, warning that allowing the caretaker leadership to oversee such exercises would erode due process and set a dangerous precedent for arbitrary decision-making within the party.
The court agreed with the plaintiffs’ submissions, holding that any congress conducted under the supervision of committees set up by the caretaker leadership would be invalid. Justice Abdulmalik stressed that adherence to constitutional provisions is essential for maintaining order, fairness, and legitimacy within political parties.
As part of the ruling, INEC has now been expressly barred from recognising, supervising, or accepting the outcomes of any state congresses conducted under the authority of the caretaker leadership. This effectively nullifies any such exercises unless they are carried out by the duly recognised state executive structures.
Those listed as defendants in the suit include the ADC, David Mark, Patricia Akwashiki, Bolaji Abdullahi, Rauf Aregbesola, Oserheimen Osunbor, and INEC. The defendants were sued in relation to their involvement in the caretaker arrangement and the disputed congress plans.
Legal analysts say the ruling reinforces the principle that political parties must strictly adhere to their constitutions and that interim leadership structures cannot assume powers not expressly granted to them. The judgment is also seen as a reaffirmation of the judiciary’s role in safeguarding internal democracy within political organisations.
The decision is expected to have immediate and long-term consequences for the ADC, particularly as the party navigates internal divisions and prepares for future electoral contests. With the court affirming the authority of state executives, attention is likely to shift toward resolving internal disputes and organising a valid national convention in accordance with constitutional provisions.
For INEC, the ruling serves as a directive to remain guided by judicial pronouncements in matters concerning party administration. The commission is expected to comply fully with the court’s order to avoid any legal or institutional conflicts.
As of the time of filing this report, there has been no official response from the caretaker leadership or other defendants named in the suit. However, political observers anticipate that the ruling may trigger further legal actions or negotiations among party stakeholders seeking to clarify their positions.
Overall, the judgment underscores the importance of due process, constitutional compliance, and institutional integrity in Nigeria’s political system. As stakeholders continue to assess its implications, the ruling is likely to shape the trajectory of internal governance within the ADC and influence broader discussions on party democracy in the country.
