Federal Court Blocks INEC from Engaging with ADC’s Disputed Interim Leadership
A Federal High Court in Abuja has issued a ruling that prohibits the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognizing or participating in a conference organized by the contentious interim leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
In her decision, Judge Joyce Abdulmalik emphasized that the ADC leadership, under the direction of Senator David Mark, cannot interfere with the responsibilities and terms of elected state officials.
Justice Abdulmalik clarified that the authority to convene state assemblies lies with the party’s state executive committee, rather than the national executive committee. She asserted that the four-year terms of the ADC’s state working and executive committees remain legitimate and operational until a properly constituted state legislature convenes or a national convention is called.
Abdulmalik highlighted that neither the ADC’s constitution nor Nigeria’s national constitution grants Mark’s Interim National Working Committee the authority to appoint parliamentary committee members for establishing state assemblies. This led several ADC state chairs, dissatisfied with the current situation, to initiate legal action against Mark’s faction.
The first lawsuit was presented by Norman Obinna and six other representatives of the ADC’s state chairpersons and executive committee. They contested the legitimacy of actions taken by the interim chairman and national leadership, arguing that the governing body lacked constitutional authority to set up a state legislature or appoint related commissions.
The plaintiffs requested the court to confirm the ongoing terms of the state executive committee and prevent parallel activities within the party. Judge Abdulmalik acknowledged that the issues raised in the original summons were valid, focusing on whether Mark and his co-defendants held the constitutional or statutory powers to assume responsibilities intended for the ADC’s elected state body, whose terms are constitutionally protected.
She referenced Article 223 of the 1999 constitution, which mandates that political parties conduct regular elections democratically, and Article 23 of the ADC constitution, which limits national and state officials to a maximum of two eight-year terms. The central question for the court was whether any violations occurred when Mark convened a meeting and appointed a Congressional Committee tasked with organizing a state legislature.
While addressing the defendants’ claims regarding the internal matters of political parties, the judge stated that while courts typically refrain from intervention, they must step in when there is a suspicion of constitutional or legal violations.
Judge Abdulmalik stressed that political parties must adhere strictly to their constitutions, and courts retain the authority to intervene in instances of deviation from legal protocols. She found that the processes the defendants followed, including the formation of a parliamentary committee, were unauthorized by the ADC constitution. Consequently, she ruled that the state executive board’s term remains valid and should continue its operations as such.
Justice Abdulmalik subsequently stayed the appointment of the contested commission and barred it from sanctioning any meetings organized by INEC. Additionally, she prohibited Mark and the other defendants from holding meetings or conventions that fall outside the provisions of the ADC constitution.
In her earlier judgment regarding preliminary objections and counter-affidavits submitted by the defendants, the judge noted that the plaintiffs’ concerns fell within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, as dictated by Article 251 of the Constitution. She dismissed the defendants’ assertion that the plaintiffs had not exhausted internal dispute resolution mechanisms, arguing that addressing this point prematurely would hinder the substantive issue at hand.
Regarding standing, she explained that the plaintiffs’ grievances derived from the alleged constitutional violations, indicating a shared interest, and therefore concluded that a representative action was suitable. The judge ultimately affirmed that the objections raised were without merit, ruling in favor of the plaintiffs. The defendants in this case include ADC, David Mark, Patricia Akwasiki, Malam Bolaji Abdullahi, Mr. Rauf Aregbesola, Mr. Oselheimen Osunbor, and INEC.
The plaintiffs have challenged the legitimacy of the Caretaker Committee and the Interim National Working Committee, seeking a court order to prevent INEC from recognizing or engaging with any meetings convened by the Caretaker Committee. They asserted that, per the party and national constitutions, the tenure of the state executive committee extends until an effective Congress is conducted. Any attempts to circumvent this process, they argued, threaten the democratic integrity of the party. However, the defendants, through initial objections, counter-affidavits, and formal statements, urged the court to dismiss the case, maintaining that the matter pertains to the internal politics of the party and raises questions about the standing and competence of the plaintiffs.
