BREAKING: Appeal Court upholds order stopping INEC from recognising ADC state congresses
Court Upholds Ruling Against ADC Leadership in Congress Dispute
ABUJA — The Court of Appeal has upheld a Federal High Court ruling that prohibits the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognizing or participating in any state congresses organized by the African Democratic Congress (ADC) leadership, which is headed by David Mark.
In the lead judgment delivered by Justice Okon Abang, the court affirmed that the lower court’s decision to grant relief to the seven ADC state chairmen was appropriate. He emphasized that these chairmen are entitled to a four-year term as defined in the party’s constitution.
The case was initiated by the seven state chairmen who, representing themselves and other state chairmen along with state executive committees, argued that Mark’s leadership lacked the constitutional authority to conduct state congresses or appoint congress committees while their elected terms were active.
The plaintiffs sought a declaration that only properly constituted state executive committees could organize such congresses, requesting that INEC be restrained from recognizing any congress convened by the interim leadership of the party.
Previously, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court ruled that the elected State Working Committees of the ADC remained the recognized officials of the party. She noted that, according to the party’s constitution, these committees, not the National Working Committee, possess the authority to conduct state congresses and oversee party affairs at the state level.
Mark, the party’s National Chairman, along with National Secretary Rauf Aregbesola, appealed the ruling, requesting that the Court of Appeal overturn the Federal High Court’s decision. However, the appellate court concurred with the lower court, stating that the issue was beyond mere internal party matters and within the court’s jurisdiction.
Justice Donatus Okorowo found the appeal to be without merit and affirmed the prior ruling. The Court of Appeal observed that the appellants did not reference recent Supreme Court judgments involving the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), which clarified that courts may intervene when political parties violate their own constitutions.
The court concluded that the state chairmen were justified in approaching the Federal High Court, asserting that the party’s internal mechanisms could not effectively resolve disputes involving those in control of its leadership. It was determined that the elected state chairmen are entitled to complete their full terms under the ADC constitution, and only those recognized by the party have the authority to conduct state congresses.
