The Court of Appeal in Abuja has upheld the judgment of the Federal High Court stopping the African Democratic Congress (ADC) from dissolving its State Working Committees (SWCs), dealing a fresh setback to the party’s interim leadership led by former Senate President David Mark.
In a split decision of two justices to one delivered on Monday, the appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the ADC, Senator David Mark and former Osun State Governor Rauf Aregbesola against the earlier judgment of the Federal High Court.
The court also imposed a cost of **N10 million** against the appellants, directing that the money be paid to the ADC state chairmen who instituted the case.
The majority judgment was delivered by Justices Okon Abang and Donatus Okorowo, while the Presiding Justice, Abba Bello Mohammed, delivered a dissenting judgment.
The ruling means that the earlier order preventing the party from dissolving its state leadership and conducting fresh state congresses under the disputed arrangement remains in force.
In the lead majority decision, Justices Abang and Okorowo agreed that the Federal High Court was right to hear the case because it involved an alleged breach of the ADC Constitution as well as Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution, which regulates the internal organisation of political parties.
The justices rejected the argument by the appellants that the matter was purely an internal affair of the party and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the courts.
According to the majority judgment, once a political party is accused of violating its own constitution in a way that affects the rights and tenure of its elected officials, the courts have the authority to intervene.
The court held that the attempt to remove the state chairmen before the expiration of their four-year tenure amounted to a violation of the party’s constitution.
The justices warned that allowing political parties to ignore their own constitutions could create disorder and weaken democratic institutions.
According to them, permitting the appellants to act outside the provisions of the ADC Constitution would encourage anarchy and undermine internal democracy within political parties.
However, the Presiding Justice, Abba Bello Mohammed, disagreed with the majority.
In his dissenting judgment, Justice Mohammed maintained that disputes relating to the election and removal of party officials remain internal matters that should generally be handled by the political party itself.
He also held that there was nothing in the ADC Constitution stating that only the State Working Committee could establish committees responsible for conducting state congresses.
The judge further questioned whether most of the respondents had the legal standing to file the suit.
According to him, only one of the seven plaintiffs clearly identified himself as a state chairman, while the remaining six failed to disclose the states they represented or provide sufficient details to establish their legal interest in the matter.
Justice Mohammed also observed that the plaintiffs rushed to court without first exploring the internal dispute resolution mechanisms provided by the party.
Despite his views, the majority judgment prevailed.
The legal battle began after seven ADC state chairmen challenged moves by the party’s interim leadership to dissolve the existing State Working Committees before the expiration of their tenure.
The plaintiffs in the case were Don Norman Obinna, Johnny Tovie Derek, Obah C. Ehigiator, Hon. Olona Yinka, Dr. Charles Idowu Omideji, Samuel Pam Gyang and Obianyo Patrick.
They filed the suit on behalf of themselves and all ADC state chairmen and State Executive Committees across the country.
The case, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/58/2026, listed the African Democratic Congress, Senator David Mark, Senator Patricia Akwashiki, Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi, Rauf Aregbesola, Prof. Oserheimen Osunbor, representing the Caretaker/Interim National Working Committee, and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as defendants.
The plaintiffs asked the court to interpret provisions of both the Nigerian Constitution and the ADC Constitution relating to the tenure of state party officials and the powers of various party organs.
They argued that their four-year tenure remained valid and could not be terminated until properly conducted state congresses and a national convention were held in line with the party’s constitution.
A major issue in the suit was the role of the ADC’s Caretaker or Interim National Working Committee.
The state chairmen argued that the caretaker body was not recognised under the party’s constitution and therefore lacked the legal authority to appoint congress committee members or organise state congresses.
They asked the court to declare all actions taken by the caretaker committee unconstitutional, null and void.
The plaintiffs also contended that any state congress organised under the supervision of the caretaker committee would violate the ADC Constitution.
They based their arguments on Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution, Article 17 of the ADC Constitution, and a Final Mediation Report dated December 23, 2023.
Earlier, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court in Abuja agreed with the state chairmen.
She ruled that the planned dissolution of the State Working Committees by the David Mark-led leadership was unconstitutional and set aside the move.
The Federal High Court also restrained the party from proceeding with plans that would end the tenure of the state officers before the expiration of their mandate.
Unhappy with the decision, the ADC, David Mark and Rauf Aregbesola appealed the judgment, arguing that the trial court wrongly assumed jurisdiction and that the dispute concerned the party’s internal affairs.
They urged the Court of Appeal to overturn the decision, claiming it resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
However, Monday’s ruling has now affirmed the High Court’s judgment and dismissed all the grounds of appeal.
The judgment is expected to have significant implications for the ADC, which has in recent months witnessed leadership disagreements over the management of the party and efforts to restructure its leadership.
With the Court of Appeal affirming that the existing State Working Committees cannot be dissolved outside the provisions of the party’s constitution, the party may have to suspend any plans to conduct state congresses under the disputed arrangement.
The ruling also reinforces the legal principle that while political parties have the right to manage their internal affairs, they must do so in accordance with their constitutions and the provisions of the Nigerian Constitution.
The decision could also affect INEC’s recognition of any state congresses or leadership changes carried out contrary to the court’s orders.
Unless the judgment is successfully challenged at the Supreme Court, the existing court orders remain binding on the party and all those involved in its leadership dispute.