Amidst setback for Atiku, others, Mark-led ADC heads to Supreme Court

Ahead the 2027 general elections, the presidential ambition of the presidential candidate of the Senator David Mark leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Alhaji Atiku Abubakar and others who emerged through the Mark-organised national congress, may have suffered setback.

This followed the decision by the Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja on Monday.

The appellate court affirmed that the judgment of the lower court restraining the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising or participating in any state congresses organised by committees appointed by the  Mark-led caretaker leadership of the ADC.

The judgment followed a suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/581/2026, filed before the court by aggrieved members of the ADC.

In a split decision of two-to-one, the  three-member panel of the appellate court, in a lead judgment delivered by Justice Okon Abang, held that it found no reason to set aside the April 29 restraining order issued by the Federal High Court in Abuja.

Justices Abang and Donatus Okorowo gave the majority verdict barring the electoral body from acknowledging the outcome of congresses held by the Mark-led leadership of the ADC, while the head of the appellate court’s panel, Justice Abba Mohammed, gave a dissenting judgment.

The court had earlier dismissed a preliminary objection filed by the defendants, where it is challenging the competence of the suit and the court’s jurisdiction to entertain it.

It held that the subject matter of the plaintiffs’ action pertaining to the affairs of INEC fell within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court under Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.

The court also dismissed the defendants’ contention that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust internal dispute resolution mechanisms before instituting the action.

It held that the plaintiffs had the requisite legal right to file the suit.

The appellate court, while upholding the restraining order, said it had a duty to intervene so as to “prevent anarchy and ensure the survival of democracy in Nigeria.”

It cited a recent Supreme Court judgment in the leadership crisis rocking the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to hold that the ADC case could not be classified as a domestic affair of a political party.

Justice Abang, the lead judge said: “Once a complaint before the court is anchored on a constitutional infraction, the shield of internal affairs drops and the veil is lifted for judicial intervention.”

The panel thereafter dismissed the appeal marked CA/ABJ/CV/608/2026, which the ADC lodged in order to set aside the high court judgment.

It held that congresses and the national convention conducted by the Mark-led ADC amounted to a nullity as they were held in disobedience to a subsisting order that the high court made on April 14.

Having resolved the case against the ADC, the appellate court awarded a cost of N10 million against the party.

The appellate court further upheld the order of Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, which restrained the Mark-led executives from interfering with the tenure and functions of the party’s elected state executives.

The appellate court, in its verdicts, agreed that responsibility for conducting state congresses of political parties rests solely with elected state executive committees and not the party’s national leadership.

…Minority decision

In his minority decision, Justice Mohammed held that the case that precipitated the restraining order bordered on a non-justiciable internal affair of a political party.

The trial court, he held, was wrong to have assumed jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

…Judgment legally unsustainable – ADC

 Reacting to the judgment, ADC National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, assured that the decision has no effect whatsoever on the direct primaries through which the party’s candidates emerged at all levels.

The party stated further that it has already commenced the process of appealing the judgment, insisting that it respectfully disagree with it and so consider it legally unsustainable.

“We also note the dissenting judgment of the presiding justice, which, in our view, more accurately reflects the settled position of the law and the party’s position.

“We urge all party members and the millions of our supporters to remain calm, confident and focused.

“The African Democratic Congress remains committed to the task of providing Nigerians with a credible alternative and will continue to pursue that mission in accordance with the constitution and the rule of law,” Abdullahi said.

Also fielding questions from newsmen after the judgment, the party’s National Welfare Secretary, Mr. Nkem Ukandu, hinted at the possibility of approaching the apex court for further interpretations.

 …The previous verdict

Blueprint reports that the High Court had, in its judgment, held that the four-year tenure of the ADC’s State Working Committees and State Executive Committees remained valid and subsisting, pending the conduct of properly constituted congresses and the convocation of a national convention.

The suit, it can be recalled, was instituted by Don Norman Obinna, Johnny Tovie Derek, Obah C. Ehigiator, Hon. Olona Yinka, Dr. Charles Idowu Omideji, Samuel Pam Gyang, and Obianyo Patrick.

They aggrieved party members sued for themselves and on behalf of all State Chairmen and State Executive Committees of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).

Also listed as defendants in the legal brawl are Sen. David Mark; Sen. Patricia Akwashiki; Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi; Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola; and Prof. Oserheimen Osunbor (sued on behalf of the Caretaker/Interim National Working Committee); and INEC.

Among other things, the plaintiff had challenged the decision of the Senator Mark-led leadership of the ADC to constitute committees for the purpose of conducting state congresses.

They also faulted the validity of appointments made by the Mark-led caretaker committee, arguing that planned state congresses slated for April 2026, if conducted under the supervision of the said caretaker committee, would constitute a gross violation of the party’s constitution.

It was further the position of the plaintiffs that only duly elected party organs recognised under the party’s constitution possess the power to conduct congresses.

While agreeing with the plaintiffs, Justice Abdulmalik held that neither the 1999 Constitution, as amended, nor the Constitution of the ADC empowered the caretaker/interim National Working Committee led by Senator Mark to appoint committees for the purpose of conducting state congresses.

The court held that the claims brought before it by the plaintiffs were valid and deserving of judicial consideration, citing alleged breach of constitutional and statutory provisions.

It held that Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, mandates political parties to conduct periodic elections based on democratic principles, adding that Article 23 of the ADC Constitution also provides that national and state officers shall hold office for a maximum of two terms spanning eight years.

Justice Abdulmalik held further that although courts are generally reluctant to interfere in the domestic affairs of political parties, they nonetheless intervene where there is a clear allegation of violation of constitutional or statutory provisions.

She held that evidence before the court established that the tenure of the state executive committees of the ADC remained valid and must be allowed to run its full course without interference.

The court stressed that only those elected structures have the authority to organise state congresses, and it accordingly nullified any process initiated by the Senator Mark-led caretaker leadership.