INEC court bars from the recognition of ADC conferences led by Mark – THISAGE

By Victor Osula, Abuja

The leadership crisis rocking the African Democratic Congress (ADC) worsened on Wednesday after the Federal High Court in Abuja barred the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognizing or participating in any congress organized by the contested interim leadership of the party led by former Senate President, David Mark.

In a ruling handed down by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, the court also upheld the mandate of the ADC’s elected state executive committees nationwide and barred the Mark-led leadership from interfering with their functions or holding parallel congresses outside the provisions of the party’s constitution.

The ruling represents a serious step backwards for the provisional leadership and effectively places control of state party structures in the hands of elected leaders pending the holding of valid congresses and a properly constituted national convention.

Justice Abdulmalik held that the ADC Caretaker/Interim National Working Committee does not have the constitutional authority to appoint any congress committee for the purpose of conducting state congresses.

The Court ruled that the power to conduct state congresses lies exclusively with the elected State Executive Committees and not with the national interim leadership.

“The issue of the original summons is meritorious,” the judge declared in handing down the sentence.

The lawsuit was filed by Norman Obinna and six others on behalf of state chairmen of the ADC and executive committees across the country, challenging the legality of actions taken by the interim leadership.

The plaintiffs argued that the administrative body acted outside of the party’s constitution by establishing a conference committee to organize state conventions to replace the party’s elected officials.

According to them, the ADC constitution recognizes only duly elected party bodies with the authority to conduct congresses and manage party affairs at the state level.

They therefore urged the Court to affirm the validity of the mandate of state leaders and to limit any parallel leadership arrangements capable of undermining their authority.

In resolving the dispute, Judge Abdulmalik identified the central issue as whether Mark and the other defendants possessed the constitutional or statutory authority to assume the powers of elected state bodies whose mandate is guaranteed by the ADC constitution.

Relying on section 223 of the 1999 Constitution and Article 23 of the ADC Constitution, the judge held that political parties are required to conduct their affairs in line with democratic principles and constitutional procedures.

He noted that Article 23 of the party’s constitution requires national and state officials to serve a maximum of two terms within an eight-year period.

“The question is whether there is any wrongdoing committed by Mr. Mark and the co-defendants when they called meetings and appointed a body known as the congressional committee to organize state conventions,” the judge said.

Justice Abdulmalik held that the procedure adopted by the defendants, including the appointment of the congress committee, is unknown to the ADC constitution and therefore invalid.

He stressed that political parties cannot abandon their constitutions under the pretext of internal autonomy.

While acknowledging the well-established legal principle that courts generally avoid interference in the internal affairs of political parties, the judge held that the court has a constitutional duty to intervene where violations of constitutional or statutory provisions are alleged.

“The law provides that the courts shall not interfere. However, where there is an allegation of violation of constitutional or statutory provisions, the court has a duty to intervene.

“When a party claims that its constitution has been violated, the court is bound to adjudicate. Any argument that this court has no jurisdiction on that basis fails,” he ruled.

As a result, the court annulled the appointment of the congress committee constituted by the interim leadership and barred INEC from recognizing any congress organized by the committee.

The court also barred Mark and other defendants from holding conferences or conventions outside the provisions of the ADC constitution.

Additionally, they were prohibited from taking action that undermined or disrupted the authority and mandate of elected state executive committees.

Justice Abdulmalik further said that the four-year tenure of the state working committees and state executive committees of the ADC remains valid and subsisting pending the holding of properly constituted congresses and a national convention conducted in line with the party’s constitution.

Previously, the court had rejected the preliminary objections raised by the defendants contesting the jurisdiction of the case. The defendants had argued that the dispute strictly concerned the internal affairs of the party and was therefore not justifiable.

They further argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing and had not exhausted internal dispute resolution mechanisms before approaching the court.

However, the judge found that the matter was essentially about INEC and compliance with the Constitution, bringing it under the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court under Section 251 of the Constitution.

On issues relating to standing, the court found that the applicants derived their standing from the alleged violations that affected their positions and mandate as elected party leaders.

Judge Abdulmalik found that the plaintiffs shared a common grievance and were therefore entitled to bring the lawsuit in a representative capacity.

Defendants in the matter include ADC, David Mark, Patricia Akwashiki, Bolaji Abdullahi, Rauf Aregbesola, Oserheimen Osunbor and INEC.

Post views:
95