ADC’s fortunes in limbo:  A-Court affirms order barring INEC from recognising Mark’s leadership

The Court of Appeal, Abuja, in a split decision, has affirmed a Federal High Court order restraining the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognizing or participating in state congresses organized by committees appointed by the Senator David Mark-led caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC). This judgment reinforces the principle that only duly elected state executive committees of political parties possess the constitutional authority to conduct such congresses. The appellate court dismissed the ADC's appeal, holding that the dispute involved constitutional violations warranting judicial intervention and awarded a cost of N10 million against the party. The decision casts a shadow over the legitimacy of any actions taken by the unrecognized caretaker committee, particularly concerning candidate nomination processes, despite the party's insistence that its candidates remain unaffected.

The landscape of internal party democracy in Nigeria has once again been shaped by judicial intervention, following a significant ruling by the Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja. In a split decision of two-to-one, the appellate court affirmed a judgment that effectively bars the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognizing or participating in any state congresses organized by committees established by the Senator David Mark-led caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC). This development, which also saw the court award a substantial N10 million cost against the party, underscores the judiciary’s critical role in enforcing adherence to party constitutions and the Electoral Act, 2022.

This judgment carries profound implications for the ADC, particularly regarding its internal structures and the legitimacy of its candidate selection processes. While the party has swiftly asserted that the ruling will not impact candidates produced through its direct primaries, the legal ramifications for an electoral body barred from recognizing certain party activities are undeniable. The decision highlights the ongoing tension between the autonomy of political parties and the imperative of internal democracy, as well as INEC's delicate position in navigating intra-party disputes.

This article will delve into the background of this protracted leadership tussle within the ADC, analyze the Court of Appeal's reasoning and its reliance on established legal principles, and explore the practical implications for legal practitioners advising political parties and candidates in Nigeria. It will argue that the judgment reinforces the judiciary's commitment to upholding constitutionalism and statutory compliance within political parties, thereby fostering greater transparency and accountability in the electoral process.

The legal battle over the leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) is a microcosm of the broader challenges facing internal party democracy in Nigeria. Political parties, as the primary vehicles for political participation, are mandated by the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and the Electoral Act, 2022, to operate democratically. Specifically, Section 223 of the Constitution mandates political parties to conduct periodic elections based on democratic principles. The Electoral Act, 2022, further elaborates on the procedures for party primaries, conventions, and the election of executive committees, with INEC vested with the power to monitor these activities.

The genesis of the current dispute within the ADC can be traced to a leadership transition that saw the former National Chairman, Chief Ralphs Okey Nwosu, hand over to a caretaker committee led by Senator David Mark and Rauf Aregbesola in July 2025. This transition, however, was immediately challenged by various factions, including a group of seven state chairmen and another led by Nafiu Bala Gombe, who alleged breaches of the party's constitution and the Electoral Act. These challenges led to multiple suits in the Federal High Court, seeking to nullify the caretaker committee's legitimacy and restrain INEC from recognizing its actions.

One such suit, filed by the state chairmen, resulted in a judgment by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court, Abuja, which held that the ADC's duly elected State Working Committees and State Executive Committees remained the recognized officials and possessed the exclusive authority to organize state congresses. This judgment specifically restrained the Mark-led executives from interfering with the tenure and functions of these elected state executives. It was this particular decision that the Mark-led faction of the ADC appealed to the Court of Appeal, leading to the recent affirmation.

The Court of Appeal's decision, delivered by a three-member panel with a majority verdict from Justices Okon Abang and Donatus Okorowo, affirmed the Federal High Court's ruling. The appellate court found no reason to set aside the restraining order issued against the Mark-led ADC on April 29, emphasizing that the responsibility for conducting state congresses rests solely with duly elected state executive committees, not a caretaker national leadership. This interpretation aligns with the fundamental principles of internal party democracy enshrined in the Nigerian Constitution and the Electoral Act, which seek to prevent arbitrary actions by party leadership and ensure that party affairs are conducted in a democratic manner.

A crucial aspect of the judgment was the Court of Appeal's rejection of the argument that the dispute constituted a non-justiciable internal affair of a political party. The court held that where allegations of constitutional or statutory violations are involved, judicial intervention becomes necessary to prevent anarchy and safeguard Nigeria's democratic process. This stance is consistent with recent Supreme Court pronouncements in similar leadership disputes, such as those involving the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), which have clarified that courts may intervene when political parties contravene their own constitutions or the Electoral Act. The court further declared that any congresses and national convention organized by the Mark-led caretaker committee were null and void, having been conducted in defiance of a subsisting restraining order issued by the Federal High Court on April 14.

INEC's role in this saga has been one of cautious neutrality, albeit with significant implications. Prior to this judgment, INEC had already indicated its non-recognition of either the Mark or Bala factions, removing Mark's name from its portal and directing parties to maintain the status quo ante bellum. The Court of Appeal's affirmation now legally solidifies INEC's position regarding the invalidity of congresses conducted by the Mark-led caretaker committee. The award of N10 million in costs against the ADC serves as a punitive measure, signaling the judiciary's disapproval of actions taken in defiance of court orders and the need for parties to adhere strictly to legal processes.

Despite the clear judicial pronouncement, the ADC, through its National Publicity Secretary, Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi, has insisted that the judgment does not affect candidates produced through the party's direct primaries. This assertion, however, faces significant legal hurdles. If the foundational congresses and conventions organized by the Mark-led caretaker committee are declared null and void, the legitimacy of any subsequent processes, including primaries for candidate nomination, could be called into question. Section 84 of the Electoral Act, 2022, mandates that political parties seeking to nominate candidates must hold primaries monitored by INEC. Without validly constituted party structures, and with INEC barred from recognizing the activities of the caretaker committee, the validity of such primaries and the candidates emerging therefrom could be subject to further legal challenges, potentially leading to disqualification. This creates a precarious situation for the party's fortunes ahead of future elections.

The Court of Appeal's affirmation of the order restraining INEC from recognizing the congresses organized by the Senator David Mark-led caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress is a pivotal moment in the ongoing struggle for internal party democracy in Nigeria. It underscores the judiciary’s unwavering commitment to upholding the rule of law and ensuring that political parties, as essential pillars of democracy, operate within the confines of their own constitutions and the Electoral Act, 2022. The N10 million cost awarded against the ADC serves as a stark reminder of the consequences of disregarding judicial directives and internal democratic principles.

For legal practitioners, this judgment highlights the critical importance of meticulous adherence to party constitutions and electoral laws in all party activities, from leadership transitions to candidate nominations. Lawyers advising political parties must conduct thorough due diligence to ensure that all processes are legally sound and immune to challenge, particularly in light of the judiciary’s readiness to intervene where constitutional or statutory infractions are alleged. The insistence by the ADC that its candidates remain unaffected, despite the nullification of the caretaker committee's congresses, signals potential future litigation. Practitioners should therefore anticipate further legal skirmishes concerning the legitimacy of candidates emerging from disputed party structures, emphasizing the need for robust legal strategies to navigate Nigeria's complex electoral jurisprudence. The path forward for the ADC remains fraught with legal uncertainty, underscoring the enduring challenges of internal party governance in the country.