The Federal High Court in Abuja, presided over by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, has issued a significant ruling barring the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognizing or participating in any congress organized by a disputed caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC). The judgment, delivered on Wednesday, also strictly restrained former Senate President, David Mark, and other senior figures in the party from interfering with the functions and four-year tenure of duly elected state executive committees.

This ruling is a critical development in the ADC’s ongoing leadership crisis, which has generated considerable tension over the control of party structures ahead of future political activities. The court's decision comes as a crucial Supreme Court judgment on a related appeal concerning the party's crisis is still awaited, with the apex court having reserved judgment on an appeal brought by the Mark-led faction on April 22.

The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/581/2026, was instituted by Norman Obinna and six others, who filed an originating summons on behalf of ADC state chairpersons and executive committees nationwide. The plaintiffs challenged the legality of actions taken by a caretaker or interim national leadership, particularly its move to organize state congresses through an appointed committee. They adamantly argued that this caretaker body lacked the constitutional authority to conduct such congresses or appoint any committee for that purpose, insisting that only properly elected party organs recognized under the party’s constitution possessed such powers.

The defendants in the suit included the ADC, David Mark, Patricia Akwashiki, Malam Bolaji Abdullahi, Mr. Rauf Aregbesola, Oserheimen Osunbor, and INEC. In their preliminary objections, counter-affidavits, and written addresses, the defendants urged the court to dismiss the suit, contending that the dispute concerned internal party affairs and was therefore not justiciable. They also argued that the plaintiffs lacked locus standi and had failed to exhaust internal dispute resolution mechanisms.

However, Justice Abdulmalik meticulously reviewed and dismissed all preliminary objections. On jurisdiction, she held that the subject matter of the plaintiffs’ action pertains to the affairs of INEC, thus falling squarely within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court under Section 251 of the Nigerian Constitution. Regarding the argument of failing to exhaust internal dispute resolution mechanisms, the judge declined to uphold the objection, stating that it would amount to deciding substantive questions prematurely. On locus standi, she affirmed that the plaintiffs’ legal standing and capacity emanated from the alleged violation of their constitutional rights, and their shared common grievance made the representative action proper.

In her judgment, Justice Abdulmalik held that the issues raised by the plaintiffs were valid and merited judicial intervention, especially given the alleged breaches of both constitutional and party provisions. She framed the central question as whether the defendants, including David Mark, had any lawful authority to assume the powers of elected state organs whose tenure is constitutionally guaranteed under the party’s internal rules. Relying on Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which mandates political parties to conduct periodic elections on a democratic basis, and Article 23 of the ADC Constitution, which provides for national and state officers to hold office for a maximum of two terms of eight years, the judge noted that party officials must emerge through democratic processes and serve constitutionally defined tenures.

Justice Abdulmalik further clarified the limits of judicial restraint on internal party affairs. While acknowledging the general principle that courts avoid interference, she stressed that such restraint does not apply where there are clear allegations of constitutional or statutory breaches. “Where a party alleges that its constitution has been violated, the court is bound to adjudicate. Any argument that this court lacks jurisdiction on that basis fails,” she ruled. She emphasized that political parties must operate strictly within their constitutions, warning that deviations, particularly in leadership processes, cannot be justified under claims of internal autonomy. Consequently, she found that the procedure adopted by the defendants, including the appointment of a “congress committee,” was not recognized by the ADC constitution and was therefore invalid.

The court’s orders included setting aside the appointment of the congress committee and restraining INEC from recognizing any congress conducted under its authority. It also explicitly barred David Mark and the other defendants from organizing congresses or conventions outside the provisions of the party’s constitution, and from taking any steps capable of undermining the authority of the state executive committees. The ruling effectively affirmed that the tenure of existing state executive committees remains valid and must run its full course without interference, asserting that only duly elected structures within the party have the authority to organize state congresses.