The Court of Appeal in Abuja has delivered a decisive blow to the African Democratic Congress (ADC) by upholding a Federal High Court ruling that bars the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising any state congresses conducted by the party’s David Mark-led caretaker committee. The judgment, handed down on July 13, 2026, reinforces the legal principle that political parties must adhere strictly to their constitutional frameworks or face judicial intervention.
The appellate court’s decision, reached by a 2-1 majority, dismisses the ADC’s appeal against Justice Joyce Abdulmalik’s April 29 ruling. Justice Okon Abang, delivering the lead judgment, declared that the ADC’s attempt to conduct state congresses through a caretaker committee violated both the party’s constitution and the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria. The court held that the authority to organise state congresses resides solely with the party’s elected state executive committees, not a national caretaker body. This ruling nullifies all congresses held under the Mark-led committee’s supervision and imposes a N10 million cost against the ADC.
The legal battle stems from a lawsuit filed by seven state chairmen of the ADC, who challenged the dissolution of their executive committees and the appointment of a congress committee by the Mark-led leadership. The plaintiffs argued that the caretaker committee’s actions were unconstitutional and designed to usurp the powers of duly elected state organs. Justice Abdulmalik, in her initial ruling, agreed, stating that the ADC’s constitution does not empower a caretaker committee to appoint congress committees or interfere with the tenure of elected state executives. The Court of Appeal’s affirmation of this ruling underscores the judiciary’s role in enforcing compliance with democratic norms within political parties.
The implications of this judgment extend beyond the ADC’s internal crisis. The court’s reliance on recent Supreme Court precedents, particularly those involving the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), signals a broader judicial stance against the arbitrary dissolution of elected party structures. Justice Abang’s majority opinion explicitly rejected the ADC’s argument that the dispute was an internal party matter, stating that constitutional violations transcend domestic affairs. This sets a precedent that could deter other political parties from bypassing their constitutions under the guise of internal reforms. The ruling also raises questions about the validity of candidates nominated through the disputed congresses, including high-profile figures like former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar.
The dissenting opinion by Justice Abba Mohammed highlights a critical tension in Nigeria’s electoral jurisprudence. Mohammed argued that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction over what he deemed an internal party dispute, asserting that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust the ADC’s internal dispute resolution mechanisms before approaching the court. His dissent reflects a longstanding judicial reluctance to intervene in the affairs of political parties, a stance that has often shielded parties from accountability. However, the majority’s decision aligns with a growing trend of judicial activism aimed at curbing impunity within political parties, particularly in cases involving constitutional breaches.
The ADC’s legal troubles reveal deeper institutional weaknesses within Nigeria’s political party system. The party’s reliance on a caretaker committee, led by former Senate President David Mark, mirrors a pattern seen in other parties where national leaderships unilaterally dissolve elected state structures to consolidate power. This practice has been a recurring source of litigation, with courts frequently called upon to arbitrate disputes arising from such power grabs. The Court of Appeal’s ruling serves as a warning that such tactics will not go unchallenged, particularly when they contravene constitutional provisions or court orders. The ADC’s decision to appeal to the Supreme Court suggests that this legal battle is far from over, but the appellate court’s judgment has already shifted the balance of power within the party.
The role of INEC in this saga underscores the commission’s delicate position as both a regulator and a facilitator of Nigeria’s electoral process. The court’s order restraining INEC from recognising the disputed congresses places the commission in a precarious position, as it must now navigate the legal fallout while preparing for the 2027 general elections. INEC’s compliance with the court’s ruling could set a precedent for how it handles similar disputes in the future, particularly in cases where political parties attempt to exploit legal ambiguities to gain electoral advantages. The commission’s ability to maintain neutrality while enforcing judicial decisions will be critical in preserving public trust in the electoral process.
The ADC’s internal crisis also exposes the fragility of Nigeria’s party democracy. The party’s leadership dispute is not an isolated incident but a symptom of a broader systemic issue where political parties prioritise expediency over constitutionalism. The court’s intervention, while necessary, highlights the limitations of judicial remedies in addressing the root causes of such crises. Without stronger internal party democracy mechanisms, political parties will continue to rely on the judiciary to resolve disputes that should ideally be settled through transparent and inclusive processes. The ADC’s case serves as a cautionary tale for other parties, demonstrating that judicial scrutiny will intensify as Nigeria approaches another election cycle.
