The Federal High Court in Abuja has restrained the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising or participating in any congress organised by the disputed caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
In a ruling delivered by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, the court also barred former Senate President David Mark and other prominent figures in the party from interfering with the functions and tenure of elected state executives. This latest development has thrown the candidate selection process for the upcoming legislative elections into uncertainty.
The case arose from an originating summons filed by Norman Obinna and six others on behalf of state chairpersons and executive committees of the party. The plaintiffs challenged the legality of actions taken by the caretaker or interim national leadership, particularly regarding the move to organise state congresses through an appointed committee.
They argued that the caretaker body lacked the constitutional authority to organise such congresses or appoint any committee for that purpose, stating that only duly elected party organs recognised under the party’s constitution possess the power to conduct congresses.
In resolving the dispute, Justice Abdulmalik held that the claims brought before the court were valid and deserving of judicial consideration, especially concerning alleged breaches of constitutional and statutory provisions. She stated, “The issue in the originating summons is meritorious.”
The judge framed the central question as whether the second to sixth defendants, including Mark, had the constitutional or statutory authority to assume the powers of elected state organs of the ADC, whose tenure is guaranteed under the party’s constitution.
She relied on Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution, which mandates political parties to conduct periodic elections based on democratic principles, as well as Article 23 of the ADC Constitution, which stipulates that national and state officers shall hold office for a maximum of two terms spanning eight years.
Justice Abdulmalik acknowledged the settled legal position that courts are generally reluctant to interfere in internal party matters. However, she clarified that they will intervene where there are clear allegations of violations of constitutional or statutory provisions. “The law is settled that courts will not interfere. However, where there is an allegation of breach of constitutional or statutory provisions, the court has a duty to intervene,” she ruled.
She stressed that political parties must operate strictly within their constitutions, noting that any deviation from prescribed procedures, particularly in leadership matters, cannot be justified under the guise of internal autonomy. The procedure adopted by the defendants, including the appointment of a “congress committee,” was deemed invalid as it was not recognised by the ADC constitution.
Consequently, the court held that the tenure of the state executive committees remains valid and must be allowed to run its full course without interference. The judge further ruled that only duly elected structures have the authority to organise state congresses, effectively nullifying any process initiated by the caretaker leadership.
In a set of far-reaching orders, the court set aside the appointment of the congress committee and restrained INEC from recognising any congress organised by it. The court also prohibited Mark and the other defendants from organising congresses or conventions outside the provisions of the party’s constitution and barred them from taking any steps capable of undermining or disrupting the authority of the state executive committees.
The PUNCH reports that the plaintiffs, led by Obinna, instituted the suit in a representative capacity on behalf of ADC state chairmen and executive committees across the country. The defendants in the matter include the ADC, David Mark, Patricia Akwashiki, Malam Bolaji Abdullahi, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, Oserheimen Osunbor, and INEC.
The plaintiffs argued that the tenure of state executive committees subsists until valid congresses are conducted in accordance with laid-down procedures, maintaining that any attempt to bypass the elected structures undermines internal party democracy and erodes the rule of law within the party.
However, the defendants opposed the suit through preliminary objections, counter-affidavits, and written addresses. Mark and the other defendants contended that the dispute related strictly to the internal affairs of the party and was therefore not justiciable. They also argued that the plaintiffs lacked locus standi to institute the action and that the suit was incompetent, asserting that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust internal dispute resolution mechanisms before approaching the court.
Leave a Reply