2027 Polls: Court Bars INEC from Recognising ADC Congresses 

The Federal High Court in Abuja has ruled that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is prohibited from recognising or participating in any congresses organised by the caretaker committee of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), led by Senator David Mark. 

The ruling, delivered by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, also restrains the Mark-led group from interfering with the functions or tenure of the party’s duly elected state executives.

Court Ruling: State Executives Retain Authority for Congresses

The court’s decision, which followed a case filed by aggrieved ADC members, emphasised that the responsibility for conducting state congresses lies with the state executive committees, not the national leadership of the party. Justice Abdulmalik noted that the four-year tenure of the ADC’s State Working Committees and State Executive Committees remains valid until properly organised congresses and the convocation of a national convention take place.

The case, labeled FHC/ABJ/CS/581/2026, was brought by Don Norman Obinna, Johnny Tovie Derek, Obah C. Ehigiator, Hon. Olona Yinka, Dr. Charles Idowu Omideji, Samuel Pam Gyang, and Obianyo Patrick. They represented the state chairmen and state executive committees of the ADC and argued that the actions of the Mark-led caretaker leadership were unconstitutional.

Challenge to Caretaker Committee’s Authority

The plaintiffs questioned the legality of the congress committee appointed by the Senator Mark-led leadership to conduct state congresses. They argued that the planned state congress, set for April 2026, would violate the ADC’s constitution if held under the supervision of the caretaker committee. The plaintiffs contended that only duly elected party organs, as per the ADC’s constitution, have the authority to organise congresses.

In agreeing with the plaintiffs, Justice Abdulmalik pointed out that neither the 1999 Constitution (as amended) nor the ADC Constitution gives the caretaker/interim National Working Committee, led by David Mark, the power to appoint committees to conduct state congresses.

Judicial Intervention in Party Affairs

While courts generally avoid interfering in the internal affairs of political parties, Justice Abdulmalik affirmed that judicial intervention is warranted when there is a clear violation of constitutional or statutory provisions. She referred to Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution, which mandates that political parties conduct elections based on democratic principles, and Article 23 of the ADC Constitution, which limits the tenure of national and state officers to two terms, or a maximum of eight years.

Justice Abdulmalik further emphasised the court’s duty to adjudicate when a party alleges violations of its constitution. She declared that the state executive committees of the ADC retained valid authority, and their tenure must be allowed to run its full course without interference. Any process initiated by the Mark-led caretaker leadership was consequently nullified by the court.

Court’s Final Judgment

The ruling effectively blocks the caretaker committee from proceeding with any actions related to state congresses, confirming that only the elected party structures have the legal authority to organise such events. The court’s decision represents a significant victory for the plaintiffs and a clear endorsement of constitutional governance within political parties.