The Independent National Electoral Commission was prohibited on Wednesday by the Federal High Court in Abuja from acknowledging or taking part in any congress held by the African Democratic Congress's disputed caretaker leadership. In a ruling by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, the court also prohibited key members of the party, including former Senate President David Mark, from interfering in the duties and terms of elected state officials.
With obvious ramifications for the control of party structures ahead of upcoming political activities, the ruling is the latest development in the long-running leadership struggle within the ADC.
The case started with a summons that Norman Obinna and six other people filed on behalf of the party's executive committees and state chairpersons.
The plaintiffs contested the validity of a caretaker or interim national leadership's acts, especially the decision to use an appointed committee to organize state congresses.
They said that the caretaker body was not authorized by the constitution to call such congresses or designate any committee to do so.
They contend that congresses can only be held by properly elected party organs recognized under the party's constitution.
As a result, the plaintiffs requested that the court uphold the state executive committees' tenure and prohibit any concurrent procedures that would compromise their power.
In settling the conflict, Justice Abdulmalik determined that the allegations made in front of the court were legitimate and worthy of judicial attention, particularly in light of purported violations of statutory and constitutional laws.
"The issue in the originating summons is meritorious," she declared.
The judge framed the main question as whether the second through sixth defendants, including Mark, had the legal or constitutional right to take on the responsibilities of the ADC's elected state organs, whose tenure is protected by the party's constitution.
She cited both Article 23 of the ADC Constitution, which states that national and state officials may serve no more than two terms of eight years, and Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution, which requires political parties to hold regular elections based on democratic principles.
"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 organize state congresses," she stated.
The judge recognized the established legal position but clarified its boundaries in response to the defendants' defense that the issue was an internal political party problem and hence outside the court's jurisdiction.
According to her ruling, courts will step in when there is a clear claim of a constitutional or statutory infringement, even if they are normally reluctant to become involved in internal party disputes.
"It is established law that courts will not get involved. However, the court has an obligation to step in when there is a claim of a violation of statutory or constitutional principles, she decided.
"The court must make a decision when a party claims that its constitution has been infringed. She said, "Any claim that this court lacks jurisdiction on that basis is unfounded.
Justice Abdulmalik emphasized that political parties must function completely within the parameters of their constitutions, pointing out that any departure from established protocols, especially when it comes to leadership issues, cannot be excused under the pretense of internal autonomy.
She concluded that the defendants' process, which included the appointment of a "congress committee," was unlawful since it was not permitted by the ADC constitution.
As a result, the court ruled that the state executive committees' tenure is still legitimate and should be allowed to continue unhindered.
The judge then declared that state congresses may only be organized by those elected structures, hence nullifying any procedures started by the caretaker government.
The court invalidated the Congress committee's appointment and prohibited INEC from recognizing any congress that it organized in a series of broad rulings.
Additionally, the court prohibited Mark and the other defendants from holding congresses or conventions in violation of the party's constitution.
They were also prohibited from doing anything that would weaken or interfere with the state executive committees' authority.
The ADC, David Mark, Patricia Akwashiki, Malam Bolaji Abdullahi, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, Oserheimen Osunbor, and INEC are among the defendants in this case.
The plaintiffs contested the legitimacy of caretaker or interim national working committees in their pleadings and asked the court to prevent INEC from acknowledging or taking part in any congress held under such arrangements.
They argued that state executive committee tenure continues under the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and the ADC constitution until legitimate congresses are held in compliance with established protocols.
Additionally, they contended that any attempt to circumvent the elected structures weakens the party's internal democracy and the rule of law.
Nevertheless, the defendants used written addresses, counter-affidavits, and preliminary objections to resist the lawsuit.
Mark and the other defendants argued that the disagreement was not justiciable because it only concerned the parties' internal affairs.
Additionally, they contended that the claim was incompetent and that the plaintiffs lacked locus standi to initiate the lawsuit.
Additionally, they argued that the plaintiffs did not use all available internal conflict resolution procedures prior to filing a lawsuit.
