The Court of Appeal in Abuja on Monday upheld an order restraining the Independent National Electoral Commission from recognizing or participating in congresses conducted by committees appointed by the Senator David Mark-led caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress. This judgment has thrown fresh uncertainty into the internal affairs of the opposition party ahead of the 2027 general election, with former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar and the ADC insisting that the ruling does not affect candidates who emerged from its direct primaries. In a split decision, the appellate court affirmed the April 29 judgment of the Federal High Court, Abuja, which barred the caretaker leadership from interfering with the tenure and functions of the elected state executive committees of the party. The majority judgment, delivered by Justice Okon Abang and supported by Justice Donatus Okorowo, held that the authority to conduct state congresses rested with elected state executive committees and not the caretaker national leadership. However, the ADC rejected the ruling, saying it would appeal the decision at the Supreme Court while maintaining that its direct primaries and candidates for the 2027 elections remained valid.
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice 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 defense that the matter is an internal party affair no longer applies. Justice Abang noted, "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 challenge of the appellants to the jurisdiction of the trial court, noting that the court had no business interfering in political decisions. He further added that the function of the state executive committees was 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, 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 constitution of the party and the 1999 Constitution. They maintained that only duly elected party organs have the constitutional authority to organize state congresses. The defendants were the ADC, David Mark, Patricia Akwashiki, Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi, 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 State Working Committees and State Executive Committees of the party remained valid and subsisting pending properly conducted congresses and a national convention in line with the constitution of the party. 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. Justice Abdulmalik also dismissed the preliminary objection of the defendants challenging the competence of the suit, holding that the case fell within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court because it involved the statutory responsibilities of INEC.
Reacting to the judgment, the ADC maintained that the Court of Appeal decision has no impact on candidates who emerged through its direct primary elections. In a statement signed by its National Publicity Secretary, Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi, the party said it had already commenced the process of appealing the judgment to the Supreme Court. The statement read, "The African Democratic Congress notes the judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal in Abuja on Monday in a matter relating to party congresses for the election of ward, local government and state executive committees of the party. We wish to assure members of the party and the general public that this judgment has no effect whatsoever on the direct primaries through which the party’s candidates have emerged at all levels. The party has already commenced the process of appealing the judgment, which we respectfully disagree with and consider to be legally unsustainable. We also note the dissenting judgment of the presiding Justice, which, in our view, more accurately reflects the settled position of the law and the party’s position." The party urged its members and the millions of ADC supporters to remain calm, confident and focused. The statement added, "The African Democratic Congress remains committed to the task of providing Nigerians with a credible alternative and will continue to pursue that mission in accordance with the Constitution and the rule of law."
Former Vice President and presidential candidate of the ADC, Atiku Abubakar, dismissed claims that the Court of Appeal judgment on the leadership crisis of the party had invalidated the primaries of the ADC for the 2027 general election, insisting that the ruling was limited to the conduct of the congresses of the party and the tenure of its state executives. Reacting to the judgment of the appellate court, Atiku said attempts to portray the decision as the collapse of the presidential ticket of the ADC amounted to political propaganda designed to mislead Nigerians and weaken the opposition. In a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, the former vice president urged party members and supporters to remain calm, assuring them that the judgment did not affect candidates who emerged through the direct primaries of the party. The statement noted, "Those celebrating today should celebrate with caution. Those attempting to sell false hope to their supporters should remember that political propaganda can never substitute for judicial pronouncements," According to Atiku, "The judgment being celebrated relates to the conduct of state congresses and the tenure of state executive committees. It does not, from the facts available, amount to a judicial nullification of the ADC’s primary elections conducted under the Electoral Act."
He argued that there was a clear legal distinction between the election of party executives through internal congresses and the nomination of candidates through statutory primary elections. The statement added, "There is a world of legal difference between the election of party executives through internal congresses and the nomination of candidates through statutory primary elections. They are distinct legal exercises, governed by different legal principles and serving different constitutional purposes. One should not be confused with the other." The ADC chieftain further maintained that courts are bound to determine only issues placed before them. The statement noted, "It is a settled principle of law that courts determine only the issues submitted before them. They neither manufacture disputes nor pronounce on matters that were never placed before them. Any attempt to stretch this judgment beyond its proper scope is an invitation to legal absurdity." Atiku also criticized what he described as attempts to misrepresent the judgment on social media. The statement added, "Our opponents appear more eager to write judgments on social media than to read the one delivered by the Court of Appeal. Nigeria is governed by the rule of law, not by headlines, hashtags or the fantasies of political opportunists." The statement disclosed that the ADC had already directed its legal team to approach the Supreme Court to challenge the decision of the appellate court. Atiku noted, "We remain respectful of the judiciary and have already instructed our legal team to approach the Supreme Court for a definitive determination of the issues arising from the judgment. That is the proper constitutional path, and we have absolute confidence in the judicial process." He urged party faithful not to be discouraged by the setback, stating, "Let no supporter of the ADC lose sleep. Let no Nigerian who believes in the restoration of our country be discouraged. The struggle to rescue Nigeria has never been about one courtroom or one judgment. It is a movement born out of the collective desire of millions of Nigerians for competent leadership, economic recovery, national unity and the restoration of hope."
0 Comments