Court stops INEC from recognising ADC caretaker congress, restrains David Mark-led excos

An order has been made by the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja directing the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) not to recognise and or participate in any congress called by a caretaker leadership in the African Democratic Congress (ADC).

In a judgment delivered on Wednesday, the court directed INEC to stay away from any process carried out by the caretaker leadership, until the substantive issue is sorted out.

The judgment comes at a time when the leadership tussle in the ADC remains unresolved, with far-reaching effects on how party structures will be controlled during future political campaigns.

The case was brought before the court by Norman Obinna and others. They complained about what the interim national leadership was doing in the party. The plaintiffs said the interim national leadership had no powers to hold congresses or to form a committee for such an exercise.

Norman Obinna and others said the interim national leadership could not carry out congresses because it was a body without legal backing.

In delivering her judgment, Justice Abdulmalik found the issues raised by the plaintiffs to be valid and warranting judicial interference, alleging breaches of constitutional and statutory provisions.

The learned judge observed that the core issue here was whether the defendants, including Mr. Mark, had the power to exercise the duties of elected organs of the state as stipulated by the party constitution.

By virtue of Sections 223 of the 1999 Constitution and Article 23 of the ADC Constitution, the court upheld that party leadership should be elected and that no leader could have their tenure ended at will.

“The core issue in the originating summons is indeed meritorious.”

With regard to the defendants’ stance that the suit was an internal party matter that did not fall within the ambit of the court’s jurisdiction, the court conceded the rule but maintained that when allegations of breach of constitutional or statutory provisions were raised, judicial interference becomes necessary.

“While it is true that courts do not intervene in internal party matters, where an allegation of breach of constitutional or statutory provisions is made, then, the court must intervene.”

According to the court, the procedure adopted by the defendants, such as setting up a “congress committee” was not provided for under the ADC constitution, thus making it illegal.

The court upheld the term of office of state executive committees and held that only elected officials could call for state congress.

As far as its orders go, the court invalidated the appointment of the congress committee and restrained INEC from recognising any congress called by this committee.

Moreover, Mr Mark and other defendants were prohibited from holding congresses and conventions contrary to the party constitution, as well as from undertaking activities aimed at frustrating the power of state executives.

David Mark, Patricia Akwashiki, Bolaji Abdullahi, Rauf Aregbesola, Oserheimen Osunbor and INEC are listed as defendants in the case.

Plaintiffs claimed that the creation of caretaker committees infringed upon internal party democracy and violated both the ADC constitution and national laws, whereas the defendants insisted that the issue was not subject to judicial review and that the plaintiffs had no locus standi to sue, among other objections.

Nevertheless, the court rejected these arguments and upheld constitutional supremacy within parties.