In a split decision of two to one, the Court of Appeal in Abuja has affirmed a judgment restraining the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising or participating in any state congresses organised by committees appointed by the David Mark-led caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).

Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Okon Abang, speaking for the majority, held that there was no basis to set aside the restraining order issued by the Federal High Court, Abuja, on April 29 against the Mark-led leadership.

The appellate court also upheld the decision of Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, which restrained the caretaker leadership from interfering with the tenure and functions of the party’s duly elected state executive committees.

The court agreed that responsibility for conducting state congresses rests with elected state executive committees, not the party’s national leadership.

Justices Okon Abang and Donatus Okorowo formed the majority, while the Presiding Justice, Justice Abba Mohammed, delivered a dissenting judgment.

In his minority decision, Justice Mohammed held that the dispute concerned the internal affairs of a political party and was therefore non-justiciable. He concluded that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

In its earlier judgment, the Federal High Court held that the four-year tenure of the ADC’s State Working Committees and State Executive Committees remained valid and subsisting pending the conduct of properly constituted congresses and the convening of a national convention.

The judgment followed a suit filed by aggrieved members of the party, namely Don Norman Obinna, Johnny Tovie Derek, Obah C. Ehigiator, Olona Yinka, Charles Idowu Omideji, Samuel Pam Gyang, and Obianyo Patrick, who instituted the action on behalf of themselves and all ADC state chairmen and state executive committees.

The defendants were the ADC; David Mark; Patricia Akwashiki; Bolaji Abdullahi; Rauf Aregbesola; Oserheimen Osunbor, sued on behalf of the Caretaker/Interim National Working Committee; and INEC.

The plaintiffs challenged the decision of the Mark-led caretaker leadership to establish committees for the conduct of state congresses.

They argued that any state congress conducted under the supervision of the caretaker committee would violate the party’s constitution, maintaining that only duly elected party organs possess the constitutional authority to conduct such congresses.

Agreeing with the plaintiffs, Justice Abdulmalik held that neither the 1999 Constitution, as amended, nor the ADC Constitution empowered the caretaker National Working Committee to appoint committees for that purpose.

The court further held that the claims raised constitutional and statutory issues warranting judicial intervention.

It ruled that Section 223 of the Constitution requires political parties to conduct periodic elections based on democratic principles, while Article 23 of the ADC Constitution provides that national and state officers may serve a maximum of two terms spanning eight years.

Justice Abdulmalik noted that although courts generally refrain from interfering in the internal affairs of political parties, they will intervene where constitutional or statutory breaches are alleged.

She held that the evidence established that the tenure of the ADC’s elected state executive committees remained valid and that only those bodies possess the authority to conduct state congresses.

The court consequently nullified every process initiated by the Mark-led caretaker leadership in relation to the congresses.

It also dismissed the defendants’ preliminary objection challenging the competence of the suit and the court’s jurisdiction.

The court held that the matter fell within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court under Section 251 of the Constitution because it involved the statutory responsibilities of INEC.

It further rejected the defendants’ argument that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust the party’s internal dispute resolution mechanisms before approaching the court, holding that they possessed the requisite locus standi to institute the action.

Affirming the lower court’s decision, the Court of Appeal held that judicial intervention was necessary to “prevent anarchy and ensure the survival of democracy in Nigeria.”

The majority relied on a recent Supreme Court judgment concerning the leadership crisis in the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), holding that the ADC dispute could not be treated 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.

The appellate court consequently dismissed Appeal No. CA/ABJ/CV/608/2026 and held that the congresses and national convention conducted by the Mark-led ADC were nullities because they were carried out in defiance of a subsisting order issued by the Federal High Court on April 14.

The court also awarded costs of ₦10 million against the ADC.