The Court of Appeal has affirmed a Federal High Court judgment restraining the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising any state congresses conducted by committees appointed by the caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) under former Senate President David Mark.
In a landmark split judgment delivered on Monday, the three-member appellate panel, by a majority decision of 2-1, dismissed David Mark’s appeal and upheld the earlier ruling of the Federal High Court in Abuja, reinforcing a legal setback for the party’s interim national leadership.
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Okon Abang held that there was no basis to overturn the April 29 ruling of Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, maintaining that the lower court acted within the law in issuing the restraining order against the Mark-led caretaker committee.
The appellate court further sustained the trial court’s directive barring the caretaker leadership from interfering with the tenure, duties, and constitutional responsibilities of the ADC’s duly elected state executive committees.
In its decision, the majority of the panel emphasised that the authority to organise and conduct state congresses is vested exclusively in the party’s elected state executive committees, not the national caretaker leadership or committees constituted by it. Consequently, the court held that INEC cannot lawfully recognise the outcome of any state congresses conducted in violation of that principle.
Justices Okon Abang and Donatus Okorowo formed the majority, agreeing that the Federal High Court’s orders should remain in force. Their decision effectively preserves the legal status of the elected state executives while preventing the electoral umpire from recognising congresses organised by committees appointed by the David Mark-led caretaker administration.
However, the judgment was not unanimous.
Presiding Justice Abba Mohammed delivered a dissenting opinion, contending that the dispute was an internal affair of a political party and therefore non-justiciable. He argued that the Federal High Court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the suit in the first place and should not have intervened in the party’s internal administrative processes.
The majority ruling, however, remains the binding decision of the Court of Appeal, representing a significant development in the ongoing leadership dispute within the ADC and potentially shaping the party’s internal structure and preparations ahead of future political activities.
