Political Turmoil: ADC Party Rocked by Court Battles, Allegations of INEC Collusion

The African Democratic Congress (ADC) finds itself embroiled in a significant legal battle over its leadership and the validity of its congresses, with wide-ranging implications for the 2027 general elections. The dispute escalated following a split two-to-one judgment by the Court of Appeal in Abuja, which set aside an earlier restraining order and effectively barred the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising congresses conducted by the Senator David Mark-led caretaker committee. This decision has sparked varied reactions and warnings about potential legal crises, pushing the matter towards the Supreme Court for final resolution.

According to lawyer and human rights activist Liborous Oshoma, the ADC's legal standing for the 2027 elections hinges on its ability to convince the Supreme Court that the suspended caretaker committee did not, in fact, conduct the party's congresses. Oshoma stressed that if the state executives conducted the congresses after the caretaker committee's suspension, the party must present undeniable evidence to the Supreme Court. He cautioned that the law does not permit replacing duly elected executives with a caretaker committee while their constitutional tenure is still subsisting. Furthermore, while courts generally refrain from interfering in party affairs, Oshoma highlighted that the Supreme Court has consistently held that intervention is warranted when constitutional provisions, either of the party or the nation, are breached, warning against interpretations that could lead to impunity. He also noted that the presidential ticket, among others, is now threatened by the judgment, with the Supreme Court expected to resolve conflicting interpretations regarding the David Mark-led leadership.

Conversely, Ralph Nwosu, former ADC National Chairman, argued that courts should not determine the leadership of political parties, citing previous Supreme Court rulings emphasizing non-interference in internal party affairs. Nwosu described the ongoing legal battle as "political rascality" by politicians seeking to manipulate the party. While acknowledging the Appeal Court's ruling on the congresses, he insisted that it did not affect the party's national leadership or the direct primaries that produced its candidates for the 2027 elections, asserting that a competent court had already confirmed the validity of David Mark and the current National Working Committee (NWC).

Barrister Kalu Agu, ADC's Zonal Secretary (South East), heavily criticised the Court of Appeal's decision, labeling it a "complete caricature of the judiciary." Agu contested the judgment's reliance on specific constitutional provisions, Article 19, subsections 7 and 9, of the ADC constitution, which he claimed do not grant state committees the exclusive power to organise state congresses. He challenged the public to verify the party's constitution from INEC. Agu also denied that the party defied any court order, stating that the congresses (April 7-11) and National Convention (April 14) had already concluded before Justice Joyce Abdul Malik issued a status quo order on April 14. He expressed concern that lower courts are consistently departing from established Supreme Court precedents regarding the non-justiciability of internal party affairs.

Echoing similar sentiments, Professor Oserheimen Osunbor, ADC's National Legal Officer, found the Court of Appeal's judgment illogical, asserting that political party congresses are constitutionally conducted by the party's national leadership, not state executives. Osunbor further argued that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the party's internal administrative affairs. He expressed confidence that the Supreme Court would overturn the ruling, alleging that the appellate court misinterpreted the ADC constitution by relying on a single provision instead of reading the document as a whole. Specifically, he pointed to Article 19(12), which empowers the National Working Committee to dissolve a state executive and appoint committees to perform its duties, classifying these as internal, non-justiciable matters. Professor Osunbor also reinforced the claim that the congresses and National Convention had concluded before any restraining order was delivered, a fact he said was even acknowledged by the plaintiffs' counsel in court. He commended the foresight of those who structured Senator David Mark's emergence, including amending the ADC constitution to pre-empt legal challenges.

Adding another layer to the party's challenges, the ADC has called for the immediate arrest and prosecution of Nafiu Bala Gombe. This demand followed INEC's swift disclaimer of documents circulated by Gombe, which falsely claimed he had obtained the commission's access code and uploaded candidates for the 2027 general election. The ADC views Gombe's actions as a criminal attempt to undermine INEC's integrity, mislead the public, and erode confidence in Nigeria's electoral process, urging law enforcement agencies to intervene.

Ultimately, the complex legal arguments, conflicting court interpretations, and accusations of political maneuvering mean that the fate of the ADC's leadership, the validity of its congresses, and the eligibility of its candidates for the 2027 elections now rest with the Supreme Court. The party leaders, while expressing confidence in their legal position, acknowledge the critical timeline as the apex court prepares to provide the definitive way forward.