The Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja on Monday, July 13, 2026, affirmed a judgment restraining the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising or participating in any state congresses organised by committees appointed by the Senator David Mark-led Caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
In a split decision of two-to-one, a three-member panel of the Appeal court, in a lead judgement delivered by Justice Okon Abang, held that it found no reason to set aside the restraining order issued by the Federal High Court in Abuja against the Mark-led ADC on April 29, 2026.
The appellate court also upheld the order of trial Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, which restrained the Mark-led executives from interfering with the tenure and functions of the party’s elected state executives.
The Appeal Court held that it concurred with the lower court that the responsibility for conducting state congresses of political parties rests with elected state executive committees, and not with the national leadership.
While Justices Abang and Donatus Okorowo gave the majority verdict barring the electoral body from acknowledging the outcome of congresses held by the Mark-led leadership of the ADC, Justice Abba Mohammed, who headed the court’s panel, gave a dissenting judgment.
In the minority judgement of the Appeal Court, Justice Mohammed held that the case that precipitated the restraining order bordered on a non-justiciable internal affair of a political party.
Justice Mohammed further held that the trial court was wrong to have assumed jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
The Court of Appeal judgment is likely to jeopardise the presidential candidacies of former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and other candidates who emerged through the national congress organised by the Mark-led faction of the ADC, ahead of the 2027 general elections.
A Federal High Court had in its judgment, held that the four-year tenure of the ADC’s State Working Committees and State Executive Committees remained valid and subsisting, pending the conduct of properly constituted congresses and the convocation of a national convention.
The judgment followed a suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/581/2026, lodged before the court by some aggrieved members of the ADC namely; Don Norman Obinna, Johnny Tovie Derek, Obah C. Ehigiator, Hon. Olona Yinka, Dr. Charles Idowu Omideji, Samuel Pam Gyang, and Obianyo Patrick.
They told the court that they sued for themselves and on behalf of all State Chairmen and State Executive Committees of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
Listed as defendants in the matter were the ADC; Senator David Mark; Senator Patricia Akwashiki; Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi; Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola; and Prof. Oserheimen Osunbor (sued on behalf of the Caretaker/Interim National Working Committee); and INEC.
The plaintiffs had, among other things, challenged the decision of the Senator Mark-led leadership of the ADC to constitute committees for the purpose of conducting state congresses.
The plaintiffs challenged the validity of appointments made by the Mark-led caretaker committee and argued that the planned state congresses slated for April 2026, if conducted under the supervision of the said caretaker committee, would constitute a gross violation of the party’s constitution.
The plaintiffs also told the court that only duly elected party organs recognised under the party’s constitution possess the power to conduct congresses.
While agreeing with the plaintiffs, Justice Abdulmalik held that neither the 1999 Constitution, as amended, nor the Constitution of the ADC empowered the caretaker/interim National Working Committee led by Senator Mark to appoint committees for the purpose of conducting state congresses.
The court held that the claims brought before it by the plaintiffs were valid and deserving of judicial consideration, citing alleged breach of constitutional and statutory provisions.
Justice Abdulmalik held that Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, mandates political parties to conduct periodic elections based on democratic principles, adding that Article 23 of the ADC Constitution also provides that national and state officers shall hold office for a maximum of two terms spanning eight years.
The trial Judge also declared that although courts are generally reluctant to interfere in the domestic affairs of political parties, they nonetheless intervene where there is a clear allegation of violation of constitutional or statutory provisions.
Justice Abdulmalik also held that the evidence before the court established that the tenure of the state executive committees of the ADC remained valid and must be allowed to run its full course without interference.
The court further held that only elected structures have the authority to organise state congresses, and accordingly nullified any process initiated by the Senator Mark-led caretaker leadership.
Earlier, the court dismissed a preliminary objection filed by the defendants challenging the competence of the suit and the court’s jurisdiction to entertain it.
It held that the subject matter of the plaintiffs’ action pertained to the affairs of INEC and therefore fell within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court under Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.
The court also waved aside the defendants’ contention that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust internal dispute resolution mechanisms before instituting the action and held that the plaintiffs had the requisite locus standi (legal right) to file the suit.
The Court of Appeal while upholding the restraining order, held that it had a duty to intervene so as to “prevent anarchy and ensure the survival of democracy in Nigeria”.
The appellate court cited a recent Supreme Court judgment in the leadership crisis rocking the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and held that the ADC case could not be classified as a domestic affair of a political party.
“Once a complaint before the court is anchored on a constitutional infraction, the shield of internal affairs drops and the veil is lifted for judicial intervention,” Justice Abang declared in the majority judgment.
Accordingly, the Appeal Court panel dismissed the appeal marked CA/ABJ/CV/608/2026, which the ADC lodged in order to set aside the judgment of the Federal High Court.
The Appeal court further held that congresses and the national convention conducted by the Mark-led ADC amounted to a nullity as they were held in disobedience to a subsisting order that the Federal High Court made on April 14.
The Appeal Court therefore awarded a N10million cost against the ADC.
Shortly after the Appeal Court judgment, the ADC, which was represented by its National Welfare Secretary, Mr. Nkem Ukandu, announced that the party would be going to the Supreme Court on an appeal against the judgement.
