The Federal High Court in Abuja today restrained the Independent National Electoral Commission from recognising or participating in any congress organised by a disputed caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress.
The court, in a judgment delivered by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, also barred former Senate President, David Mark, and other prominent figures in the party from interfering with the functions and tenure of elected state executives, reports The PUNCH.
The ruling is the latest development in the festering leadership dispute within the ADC, with clear implications for the control of party structures ahead of future political activities.
The case arose from an originating summons filed by Norman Obinna and six others on behalf of state chairpersons and executive committees of the party.
The plaintiffs challenged the legality of actions taken by a caretaker or interim national leadership, particularly the move to organise state congresses through an appointed committee.
They argued that the caretaker body lacked constitutional authority to organise such congresses or to appoint any committee for that purpose.
According to them, only duly elected party organs recognised under the party’s constitution possess the power to conduct congresses.
The plaintiffs, therefore, asked the court to affirm the tenure of the state executive committees and restrain any parallel processes that could undermine their authority.
In resolving the dispute, Justice Abdulmalik held that the claims brought before the court were valid and deserving of judicial consideration, especially in view of alleged breaches of constitutional and statutory provisions.
She stated that she found “the issue in the originating summons meritorious”.
The judge framed the central issue as whether the second to sixth defendants, including Mark, had the constitutional or statutory authority to assume the powers of elected state organs of the ADC, whose tenure is guaranteed under the party’s constitution.
She relied on section 223 of the 1999 Constitution, which mandates political parties to conduct periodic elections based on democratic principles, as well as Article 23 of the ADC Constitution, which provides that national and state officers shall hold office for a maximum of two terms spanning eight years.
According to her, “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.”
On the defence raised by the defendants that the matter was an internal affair of a political party and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the court, the judge acknowledged the settled legal position but clarified its limits.
She held that while courts are generally reluctant to interfere in internal party matters, they will intervene where there is a clear allegation of violation of constitutional or statutory provisions.
“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,” she ruled.
“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 added.
Justice Abdulmalik stressed that political parties must operate strictly within the confines of their constitutions, noting that any deviation from prescribed procedures, particularly in leadership matters, cannot be justified under the guise of internal autonomy.
She found that the procedure adopted by the defendants, including the appointment of a “congress committee,” was not recognised by the ADC constitution and therefore invalid.
Consequently, the court held that the tenure of the state executive committees remains valid and must be allowed to run its full course without interference.
The judge further ruled that only those elected structures have the authority to organise state congresses, effectively nullifying any process initiated by the caretaker leadership.
In a set of far-reaching orders, the court set aside the appointment of the congress committee and restrained INEC from recognising any congress organised by it.
The court also restrained Mark and the other defendants from organising congresses or conventions outside the provisions of the party’s constitution.
Additionally, they were barred from taking any steps capable of undermining or disrupting the authority of the state executive committees.
The plaintiffs, led by Obinna, instituted the suit in a representative capacity on behalf of ADC state chairmen and executive committees across the country.
The defendants in the matter include the ADC, David Mark, Patricia Akwashiki, Malam Bolaji Abdullahi, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, Oserheimen Osunbor, and INEC.
In their submissions, the plaintiffs challenged the legality of caretaker or interim national working committees and urged the court to restrain INEC from recognising or participating in any congress conducted under such arrangements.
They maintained that under both the ADC constitution and the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the tenure of state executive committees subsists until valid congresses are conducted in accordance with laid-down procedures.
They further argued that any attempt to bypass the elected structures undermines internal party democracy and erodes the rule of law within the party.
However, the defendants opposed the suit through preliminary objections, counter-affidavits and written addresses.
Mark and the other defendants contended that the dispute related strictly to the internal affairs of the party and was therefore not justiciable.
They also argued that the plaintiffs lacked locus standi to institute the action and that the suit was incompetent.
They further submitted that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust internal dispute resolution mechanisms before approaching the court.
