The leadership crisis rocking the African Democratic Congress took a fresh turn on Wednesday after the Federal High Court in Abuja restrained the Independent National Electoral Commission from recognising any congress organised by the party’s disputed caretaker leadership.
In a judgment delivered by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, the court also barred former Senate President David Mark and other prominent figures in the party from interfering with the powers and tenure of elected state executives.
The ruling is the latest chapter in the internal battle for control of the ADC and could have far-reaching implications for the party’s structure ahead of future political activities.
The suit was instituted by Norman Obinna and six others, who said they were representing state chairmen and executive committees of the party across the country.
They challenged the legality of moves by an interim national leadership to conduct state congresses through a committee allegedly set up outside the party’s constitution.
According to the plaintiffs, the caretaker body lacked the authority to organise congresses or appoint committees for that purpose.
They maintained that only duly elected party organs recognised under the ADC constitution could conduct congresses.
The claimants therefore asked the court to uphold the tenure of the state executive committees and stop any parallel arrangement capable of weakening them.
Delivering judgment, Justice Abdulmalik held that the issues raised before the court were valid and required judicial intervention.
She said the originating summons was meritorious, especially in view of alleged breaches of constitutional and statutory provisions.
The judge identified the key issue as whether Mark and the other defendants had the authority to assume powers belonging to elected state organs whose tenure was protected by the party constitution.
She relied on Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution, which mandates political parties to conduct periodic elections based on democratic principles.
The court also cited Article 23 of the ADC constitution, which provides that national and state officers shall serve a maximum of two terms spanning eight years.
Justice Abdulmalik said the court had to determine whether there was any violation when meetings were convened and a congress committee appointed to organise state congresses.
On the defendants’ argument that the matter was purely an internal party affair beyond the jurisdiction of the court, the judge acknowledged the legal position but explained that there were exceptions.
She ruled that where allegations involve breaches of constitutional or statutory provisions, the court has a duty to intervene.
According to her, once a party alleges violation of its constitution, the court cannot decline jurisdiction.
The judge further stressed that political parties must operate strictly within the provisions of their constitutions.
She held that any departure from laid-down procedures, particularly on leadership matters, could not be justified under the guise of internal autonomy.
Justice Abdulmalik found that the congress committee created by the defendants was not recognised by the ADC constitution and was therefore invalid.
She consequently ruled that the tenure of the state executive committees remains valid and must run its full course without interference.
The court also declared that only the elected structures have the authority to organise state congresses.
In a series of orders, the judge set aside the appointment of the congress committee and restrained INEC from recognising any congress conducted by it.
Mark and the other defendants were also barred from organising congresses or conventions outside the provisions of the party constitution.
They were equally restrained from taking steps capable of undermining or disrupting the authority of the state executive committees.
The defendants in the suit include the ADC, David Mark, Patricia Akwashiki, Bolaji Abdullahi, Rauf Aregbesola, Oserheimen Osunbor and INEC.
The defendants had opposed the suit through preliminary objections, counter-affidavits and written addresses.
They argued that the dispute was an internal party matter, that the plaintiffs lacked the legal standing to sue, and that internal dispute resolution channels were not exhausted before the matter was taken to court.
