LAGOS APRIL 29TH (NEWSRANGERS)-A federal high court in Abuja has restrained the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising or participating in any state congresses organised by a caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress, African Democratic Congress (ADC).
In a judgment delivered on Wednesday, Joyce Abdulmalik, presiding judge, held that the four-year tenure of the ADC’s state working committees and state executive committees remains valid and subsisting, pending the conduct of properly constituted congresses and the convocation of a national convention.
The court held that neither the constitution of Nigeria nor the party’s constitution empowers the caretaker/interim national working committee, led by David Mark, former senate president, to appoint committees to conduct state congresses.
Abdulmalik held that the duty of conducting state congresses resides with state executive committees of the party, not with the national executive committee.
She restrained the Mark-led leadership from interfering with the functions and tenure of elected state executives.
The suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/581/2026, was filed by some aggrieved members of the party, including Don Norman Obinna, Johnny Tovie Derek, Obah Ehigiator, Olona Yinka, Charles Omideji, Samuel Pam Gyang, and Obianyo Patrick as plaintiffs, suing for themselves and on behalf of all state chairmen and state executive committees of the ADC.
The plaintiffs argued that the caretaker body lacked the constitutional authority to organise state congresses or appoint committees for that purpose.
They asked the court to affirm their tenure and stop any parallel process.
In her judgment, Abdulmalik said she found “the issue in the originating summons meritorious”.
She said the core issue was whether the 2nd and 6th defendants, including Mark, had constitutional or statutory authority to assume the powers of an elected state organ of the ADC, whose tenure is constitutionally guaranteed.
According to her, section 223 of the 1999 constitution provides that political parties shall conduct periodic elections on a democratic basis, while article 23 of the party’s constitution provides that national and state officers shall hold office for a maximum of two terms of eight years.
On the issue of internal affairs of political parties raised by the defendants, the judge held that “where there is an allegation of breach of constitutional or statutory provisions, the court has a duty to intervene”.
According to her, 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,” the judge ruled.
The judge noted that political parties must strictly comply with their constitutions and that courts can intervene when there is a breach of constitutional or statutory provisions.
TheCable
For media advert placement, events coverage, p=media consultancy, placement of publications and further inquiries please WhatsApp 2348023773039 or email: labakevwe@yahoo.com
