Political Showdown: Appeal Court vs. ADC in Battle Over State Congresses Recognition

A significant legal battle concerning the internal governance of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) has seen a split decision from a three-member panel of justices at the appellate court. The court upheld a previous restraining order issued against the Senator David Mark-led caretaker committee, a development the party has swiftly announced it will appeal to the Supreme Court.

The majority judgment, delivered by Justice Okon Abang and supported by Justice Donatus Okorowo, affirmed the trial court's ruling which had restrained the Mark-led executives from interfering with the tenure and functions of the party’s elected state executives. The appellate court found that the responsibility for conducting state congresses of political parties rightfully rests with elected state executive committees, not with the national leadership. Justice Abang elaborated that the appellant, ADC, had breached Section 223(1)(a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria by failing to comply with constitutional provisions in its internal affairs, thus validating the trial court's jurisdiction. The majority judgment further dismissed the appellant's contention that the matter was a mere internal party affair, stating that such a shield drops when a complaint is anchored on a constitutional infraction. The court held that the suspension of state chairmen and the appointment of the caretaker committee for conducting the national convention were unlawful, unconstitutional, null, and void, and awarded costs of N10 million against the ADC in favour of the 1st to 7th respondents.

This appellate court decision stemmed from a suit (FHC/ABJ/CS/581/2026) initially lodged before the Federal High Court by aggrieved members of the ADC, including Don Norman Obinna, Johnny Tovie Derek, and others, who sued on behalf of the party's State Chairmen and State Executive Committees. The plaintiffs challenged the decision of the Senator Mark-led leadership to constitute committees for state congresses, arguing that only duly elected party organs possess such power. The defendants in the suit included the ADC, Senator David Mark, Senator Patricia Akwashiki, Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, Professor Oserheimen Osunbor (sued on behalf of the Caretaker/Interim National Working Committee), and INEC.

The trial court, presided over by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, had initially delivered its judgment on April 29, 2026. Justice Abdulmalik held that neither the 1999 Constitution, as amended, nor the ADC Constitution empowered the caretaker/interim National Working Committee to appoint committees for state congresses. She stressed that Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution mandates political parties to conduct periodic elections based on democratic principles, and Article 23 of the ADC Constitution specifies officer terms. The court emphasized that while it is generally reluctant to interfere in domestic party affairs, intervention is necessary where there is a clear allegation of constitutional or statutory violation. The trial court also dismissed a preliminary objection by the defendants challenging the suit's competence and jurisdiction, asserting that the matter pertained to INEC affairs and fell under the Federal High Court's jurisdiction. It affirmed that the four-year tenure of the ADC’s State Working Committees and State Executive Committees remained valid and subsisting.

In contrast to the majority, the presiding Justice of the three-member appellate panel, Justice Abba Mohammed, issued a dissenting judgment. Justice Mohammed argued that the case leading to the restraining order was a non-justiciable internal affair of a political party and that the trial court was wrong to have assumed jurisdiction. He found it difficult to concur with Justices Abang and Okorowo, describing both the majority decision and the judgment of the trial court as perverse. He maintained that the dispute was an internal party matter and therefore not justiciable. Justice Mohammed also held that the actions of the 1st to 7th respondents in the appeal were premature, as they failed to exhaust the internal dispute resolution mechanisms of the party before filing the suit. He concluded that any judgment entered by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity and, accordingly, set aside the Federal High Court judgment for want of jurisdiction, deeming the appeal meritorious and allowed.

Reacting to the appellate court's development, Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi, the ADC National Publicity Secretary, stated that the party noted the judgment, which related to party congresses for the election of ward, local government, and state executive committees. Abdullahi announced that the party had already “commenced the process of appealing the judgment, which we respectfully disagree with and consider to be legally unsustainable.” He highlighted the dissenting judgment of the presiding Justice, which, in the party's view, “more accurately reflects the settled position of the law and the Party’s position.” The ADC urged all party members and supporters to remain calm and focused, reaffirming its commitment to providing Nigerians with a credible alternative in accordance with the Constitution and the rule of law.