The Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja has upheld a Federal High Court judgment restraining the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising or participating in state congresses conducted by committees appointed by the Senator David Mark-led caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
In a split decision delivered on Monday, two members of the three-man panel affirmed the earlier ruling, while one justice dissented.
Justice Okon Abang, who delivered the lead judgment, held that there was no basis to overturn the restraining order issued by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court on April 29.
The appellate court also upheld the trial court’s order restraining the caretaker leadership headed by Senator Mark from interfering with the tenure and responsibilities of the party’s duly elected state executive committees.
The majority judgment further held that the responsibility for conducting state congresses belongs to elected state executive committees rather than the party’s national leadership.
Justices Okon Abang and Donatus Okorowo formed the majority, while Justice Abba Mohammed delivered a dissenting opinion.
In his minority judgment, Justice Mohammed 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 the jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
The judgment could have significant political implications, particularly for candidates who emerged through congresses organised by the Senator Mark-led faction of the ADC ahead of the 2027 general elections.
Among those potentially affected are former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and other aspirants who secured nominations during the disputed congresses.
The Federal High Court had earlier ruled that the four-year tenure of the ADC’s State Working Committees and State Executive Committees remained valid until properly constituted congresses and a national convention are conducted in accordance with the party’s constitution.
The decision followed a suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/581/2026, instituted by aggrieved members of the party.
The plaintiffs included Don Norman Obinna, Johnny Tovie Derek, Obah C. Ehigiator, Hon. Olona Yinka, Dr. Charles Idowu Omideji, Samuel Pam Gyang and Obianyo Patrick, who said they instituted the action on behalf of all ADC State Chairmen and State Executive Committees.
The defendants in the case were the African Democratic Congress, Senator David Mark, Senator Patricia Akwashiki, Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, Prof. Oserheimen Osunbor, who was sued on behalf of the Caretaker/Interim National Working Committee, and the Independent National Electoral Commission.
The plaintiffs challenged the decision of the caretaker leadership to establish committees responsible for organising state congresses.
They argued that only constitutionally recognised elected organs of the party possess the authority to conduct such congresses and maintained that the planned exercise violated the party’s constitution.
Justice Abdulmalik agreed with the plaintiffs, holding that neither the 1999 Constitution nor the ADC Constitution empowers a caretaker National Working Committee to appoint committees for the conduct of state congresses.
She ruled that the allegations before the court involved constitutional and statutory breaches, making the matter one deserving of judicial determination.
The judge relied on Section 223 of the Constitution, which requires political parties to operate on democratic principles, as well as Article 23 of the ADC Constitution, which prescribes the tenure of elected party officials.
Although courts generally avoid interfering in the internal affairs of political parties, she noted that judicial intervention becomes necessary where constitutional or statutory violations are alleged.
Justice Abdulmalik also dismissed the preliminary objection challenging the court’s jurisdiction, holding that the issues raised involved INEC and therefore fell within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court under Section 251 of the Constitution.
She equally held that the plaintiffs had the legal standing to institute the suit and were not required to exhaust internal dispute resolution mechanisms before approaching the court.
Affirming the lower court’s judgment, the Court of Appeal stated that judicial intervention was necessary to preserve democratic order and prevent constitutional violations.
The court referred to a recent Supreme Court judgment involving the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), holding that the dispute could not be regarded merely as an internal party affair.
“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,” Justice Abang stated in the majority judgment.
Consequently, the appellate court dismissed the appeal marked CA/ABJ/CV/608/2026, filed by the ADC against the Federal High Court judgment.
The panel also held that the congresses and national convention organised by the Senator Mark-led leadership were conducted in violation of a subsisting court order issued on April 14 and were therefore null and void.
The court awarded costs of ₦10 million against the ADC.
Following the judgment, the party, represented by its National Welfare Secretary, Nkem Ukandu, announced that it would challenge the decision before the Supreme Court.
