JUST IN: Setback for David Mark ADC faction, as Court bars INEC from recognizing congress

The Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) not to recognize or attend any congress organized by the interim leadership of the African Democratic Congress, African Democratic Congress (ADC) in the state.

Judge Joyce Abdulmalik on Wednesday ruled that the four-year terms of office of the state working committee and the state executive committee of the ADC remain valid and in force, pending the conduct of a properly constituted congress and the holding of a national convention.

The court, in its ruling, also prohibited former Senate President David Mark and other prominent figures in the party from interfering in the functions and terms of office of the state’s elected executive.

The decision is the latest in a worsening leadership dispute within the ADC, with clear implications for control of the party structure ahead of the upcoming 2027 general election.

The case arose out of a summons filed by Norman Obinna and six others on behalf of the state chairman and the party’s executive committee.

The plaintiffs questioned the legality of actions taken by acting officials or interim national leadership, particularly actions to convene state congresses through designated committees.

They argued that the interim body had no constitutional authority to convene such a congress or appoint any committee for that purpose.

According to them, only party organs that are legally elected and recognized based on the party constitution have the authority to hold congresses.

Therefore, the plaintiffs asked the court to affirm the tenure of the state executive committee and restrain parallel proceedings that could undermine their authority.

In resolving the dispute, Judge Abdulmalik was of the opinion that the demands submitted to the court were valid and deserved legal consideration, especially considering the alleged violation of constitutional and statutory provisions.

READ ALSO: Cubana Chiefpriest signals interest in House of Reps under APC after ‘City Boys’ alignment

He stated that he considered “the problem of the initial call being worthwhile.”

The judge framed the main issue as whether the second to sixth defendants, including Mark, had the constitutional or statutory authority to take over the powers of an elected state body in the ADC, whose term of office is guaranteed under the party’s constitution.

He relied on Article 223 of the 1999 Constitution, which mandates political parties to hold periodic elections based on democratic principles, as well as Article 23 of the ADC Constitution, which states that national and state officials may serve a maximum of two terms within a period of eight years.

According to him, “the question is whether there was any misconduct committed by Mark and the defendants when they convened and appointed a body known as a congressional committee to convene the state congress.”

Based on the defendants’ defense that the matter was an internal political party matter and therefore outside the court’s jurisdiction, the judge acknowledged the established legal position but clarified its boundaries.

He argued that although courts are generally reluctant to intervene in internal party affairs, they will intervene if there are clear allegations of violations of constitutional provisions or laws.

“The law has stipulated that the court will not intervene. However, if there are allegations of violations of constitutional provisions or laws, then the court has an obligation to intervene,” he stressed.

“If a party alleges that its constitution has been violated, then the court is obliged to adjudicate. Any argument that this court does not have jurisdiction on that basis will fail,” he added.

Judge Abdulmalik stressed that political parties must operate strictly within the boundaries of their constitutions, and noted that any deviation from prescribed procedures, particularly in matters of leadership, cannot be justified under the guise of internal autonomy.

He found that the procedures taken by the defendants, including the appointment of a “congressional committee,” were not recognized by the ADC constitution and were therefore invalid.

Therefore, the court ruled that the term of office of the state executive committee remains valid and should be allowed to run its full course without interference.