A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja on Wednesday, April 29, 2026, ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) not to give recognition to any State Congress organised by the Caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) led by Senator David Mark and Rauf Aregbesola as National Chairman and National Secretary respectively.
The court presided over by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik also barred INEC from participating in any state congresses organised by David Mark-led ADC.
In her ruling on the matter which followed an originating summons filed by Norman Obinna and six others, Justice Abdulmalik restrained Senator David Mark and other key party figures from interfering with the functions and lawful tenure of the elected state executives of the party.
Norman Obinna and six others had sued on behalf of the ADC State chairpersons and their executive committees in which they challenged the legality of the David Mark-led Caretaker or Interim national leadership, arguing that the body lacks the constitutional authority under the ADC’s constitution to organise state congresses or appoint committees for that purpose.
The plaintiffs therefore prayed the court to affirm the legitimacy and tenure of the elected state executives and to halt any parallel processes that could undermine them.
The interim ruling sought to preserve the status quo and prevent any actions that could render the substantive suit nugatory pending its final determination.
Justice Abdulmalik held that the issue in the originating summons was meritorious, adding that the germane issue was whether the second to sixth defendants, including Mr Mark, had constitutional or statutory authority to assume the powers of an elected state organ of the ADC, whose tenure is constitutionally guaranteed.
The trial judge said that Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution provides that political parties shall conduct periodic elections on a democratic basis, while article 23 of the ADC’s constitution provides that national and state officers shall hold office for a maximum of two terms of eight years.
Justice Abdulmalik further ruled; “The question is whether there is any infraction committed by Mr Mark and co-defendants when they convened meetings and appointed a body known as a congress committee to organise state congresses”.
On the issue of internal affairs of political parties raised by the defendants, Justice Abdulmalik held that the” law is settled that courts will not interfere”, adding however, that where there is an allegation of breach of constitutional or statutory provisions, the court has a duty to intervene.
In the words of Abdulmalik; “Where a party alleges that its constitution has been violated, the court is bound to adjudicate. Any argument that this court lacks jurisdiction on that basis fails”.
Justice Abdulmalik also held that political parties must comply strictly with their constitutions and that courts can intervene where there is a breach of constitutional or statutory provisions.
The trial judge said that the procedure adopted by the defendants, including the appointment of a “congress committee”, is not recognised by the ADC’s constitution and therefore ruled that the tenure of state executive committees remains valid and must be allowed to run its course.
Justice Abdulmalik noted that only those elected structures have the authority to organise state congresses.
The court therefore set aside the appointment of the committee and restrained INEC from recognising any congress organised by it.
The court also restrained Senator Mark and other defendants from organising congresses or conventions outside the provisions of the ADC’s constitution and also restrained them from taking steps that could undermine or disrupt the authority of the state executive committees.
The suit was instituted by way of originating summons by the plaintiffs, led by Mr Obinna and six others on behalf of state chairmen and executive committees of the ADC.
The defendants in the suit included the ADC, David Mark, Patricia Akwashiki, Malam Bolaji Abdullahi, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, Oserheimen Osunbor, and INEC.
The plaintiffs challenged the legality of the caretaker or interim national working committees and urged the court to restrain INEC from recognising or participating in any congress organised by the caretaker committee.
They contended that, under the party’s constitution and the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the tenure of state executive committees subsists until valid congresses are conducted, stressing that any attempt to bypass them undermines internal party democracy.
However, the defendants, in preliminary objections, counter-affidavits and written addresses, urged the court to dismiss the suit.
Senator Mark and others argued that the matter relates to internal affairs of a political party, is not justiciable, adding that the plaintiffs lack locus standi, and that the suit is incompetent.
Shortly before delivering judgment, Justice Abdulmalik ruled on the preliminary objections and counter-affidavits filed by the defendants.
On jurisdiction, thew court held that “the subject matter of the plaintiff’s action pertains to the affairs of INEC,” which falls within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court under section 251 of the Constitution.
On the argument that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust internal dispute resolution mechanisms, the court declined to uphold the objection and held that determining that issue would amount to deciding substantive questions prematurely.
On locus standi, Justice Abdulmalik held that the plaintiffs’ locus standi and capacity emanate from the alleged violation, adding that they share a common grievance, thus making the representative action proper.
