Legal Uncertainty Surrounds African Democratic Congress Following Court Ruling
ABUJA — Conflicting legal interpretations have surfaced regarding the implications of the Court of Appeal’s recent ruling that invalidated the April 14 national convention of the African Democratic Congress (ADC). Some legal experts warn that unless this ruling is overturned by the Supreme Court, it could jeopardize the party’s ability to participate in the 2027 general elections.
In a split judgment delivered on Monday, a three-member panel of the Abuja Court of Appeal upheld a prior decision by the Federal High Court that restrained the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognizing or involving itself in the ADC’s state congress. The court found that the congress violated an existing court order that preserved the tenure of the party’s former state executive committee.
The Court of Appeal further invalidated the national convention that established the national executive committee led by David Mark, imposing a fine of NOK 10 million on the party. This ruling has ignited fervent discussions among political observers and legal practitioners about its ramifications for ADC candidates in the upcoming 2027 elections.
Atiku Addresses Concerns about ADC’s Candidate Eligibility
In light of the ruling, the party’s presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, dismissed claims that it nullified the party’s primaries, urging members not to be swayed by what he termed misinformation. In a statement from his senior special assistant on public relations, Puran Shaib, Atiku argued that the ruling would specifically pertain to party and national conventions.
Atiku emphasized, “The ruling does not entail a judicial annulment of the ADC’s primaries. There is a distinct legal difference between party conventions for selecting executives and statutory primaries for nominating candidates.” Echoing this sentiment, ADC National Publicity Secretary Bolaji Abdullahi asserted that the judgment would not hinder the nomination of the party’s candidates, adding that they deemed the ruling legally unsustainable and have initiated an appeal process.
Legal Experts Warn of Potential Fallout
Conversely, various legal experts caution that if the Court of Appeal’s decision is not overturned by the Supreme Court, actions taken by the party leadership during the invalidated convention—including the conduct of party primaries—could be rendered invalid. Wayne Chikezie Elijah and other legal professionals posit that this judgment could significantly impact the party’s overall electoral process.
Chikezie warned, “The electoral process consists of numerous interconnected events. Anything undertaken in the context of the invalidated convention is essentially null and void, leaving the ADC without candidates for various positions, including president and governor.” He further cautioned that the party could be precluded from contesting in the 2027 elections if the timeline for conducting new primaries elapses before the legal battle reaches a resolution.
Disputes Over Jurisdiction and Internal Party Matters
Lawyer Ebuka Nwaeze offers a different perspective, suggesting that the ultimate legal outcome hinges on whether the Supreme Court upholds the majority decision of the Court of Appeal. He asserted that if the ruling is maintained, it would significantly affect the ADC’s national executive committee’s actions but raised questions about the Federal High Court’s jurisdiction over a matter largely revolving around internal party leadership.
Nwaeze articulated his doubts, asking, “What exactly did INEC do wrong? When internal factions of a political party contest leadership, it’s problematic to involve external judicial intervention.”
Court Warns Against Non-Compliance with Judicial Authority
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Okon Abang affirmed that the ADC’s state and national conventions were held in violation of an injunction issued on April 14, marking the party’s actions as a clear defiance of judicial authority. The Court of Appeal cautioned that a lack of enforcement of compliance with court orders by political parties could lead to chaos.
Consequently, the court upheld the April 29 judgment from Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court in Abuja, which had restricted the David Mark-led National Executive Committee from interfering with the tenure of the elected State Executive Committee, reaffirming its validity under Article 19, Sections 7 and 8 of the ADC Constitution.
Dissenting Views on Jurisdictional Authority
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Abba Mohammed contended that the Federal High Court lacked the jurisdiction to handle the case, even with INEC as a defendant. He emphasized that the core issues related to internal leadership disputes, which should fall under the state high court’s purview. “The law indicates that primary remedies invoke the jurisdiction of the court,” Mohammed argued.
He lamented, “If a court cannot exercise jurisdiction over primary claims, it cannot extend that jurisdiction to ancillary matters, particularly when they are closely linked to the primary issue.”
The ADC has already instigated an appeal to the Supreme Court, with a final decision anticipated to influence not just internal party leadership but also its eligibility for full participation in the 2027 general elections.
