Court Bars INEC From Recognising ADC State Congresses

A FEDERAL High Court in Abuja, presided over by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, has restrained the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising or participating in any congress organised by a the David Mark-led leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
Justice Abdulmalik also restrained Mark and other party stakeholders from interfering with the functions and tenure of elected state executives.
The ruling followed an originating summons filed by Norman Obinna and six others on behalf of ADC state chairpersons and executive committees, challenging the legality of actions taken by an interim national leadership, which they argued lacked the constitutional authority to organise state congresses or appoint committees for that purpose.
They urged the court to affirm their tenure and stop any parallel process.
In her ruling, Justice Abdulmalik said she found “the issue in the originating summons meritorious,” holding that the germane issue was whether the second to sixth defendants, including Mark, had constitutional or statutory authority to assume the powers of an elected state organ of the ADC, whose tenure is constitutionally guaranteed.
The Judge held that Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) provides that political parties shall conduct periodic elections on a democratic basis, while Article 23 of the party’s constitution provides that national and state officers shall hold office for a maximum of two terms of eight years.
She noted that “the question is whether there is any infraction committed by 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, she said “the law is settled that courts will not interfere. However, where there is an allegation of breach of constitutional or statutory provisions, the court has a duty to intervene.
“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 courts can intervene where there is a breach of constitutional or statutory provisions, saying she found that the procedure adopted by the defendants, including the appointment of a “congress committee,” is not recognised by the party’s constitution.
She ruled that the tenure of state executive committees remains valid and must be allowed to run its course, adding that only those elected structures have the authority to organise state congresses.
The Judge set aside the appointment of the committee and restrained INEC from recognising any congress organised by it, and Mark and other defendants from organising congresses or conventions outside the provisions of the party’s constitution.
She also restrained them from taking steps that could undermine or disrupt the authority of the state executive committees.
Defendants in the case include the ADC, Mark, Patricia Akwashiki, Bolaji Abdullahi, Rauf Aregbesola, Oserheimen Osunbor, and INEC.
The plaintiffs had challenged the legality of 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, contending that, under the party’s constitution and the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the tenure of state executive committees subsists until valid congresses are conducted and 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.
Mark and others had argued that the matter relates to internal affairs of a political party and is not justiciable; hence the plaintiffs lack locus standi and the suit incompetent.
But Justice Abdulmalik, before delivering judgment, ruled on the preliminary objections and counter-affidavits filed by the defendants, saying “the subject matter of the plaintiff’s action pertains to the affairs of INEC,” and therefore 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 before approaching the court, the Judge declined to uphold the objection at that stage, holding that determining that issue would amount to deciding substantive questions prematurely.
On locus standi, she held that “the plaintiffs’ locus standi and capacity emanate from the alleged “violation” and that they share a common grievance, making the representative action proper.
Consequently, she held that the objections lacked merit and were resolved in favour of the plaintiffs.